Search for: "Precision Medical, Inc."
Results 381 - 400
of 861
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Jan 2014, 5:29 am
[SEI/Aaron’s] relies upon Innotex Precision Ltd. v. [read post]
3 Jan 2014, 5:52 am
Acuity Specialty Products Group, Inc., 664 F.Supp. 2d 137 (D. [read post]
23 Dec 2013, 5:16 am
Pfizer, Inc., 712 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2013), Aetna, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Dec 2013, 9:00 pm
Tolmar, Inc., No. 2013-1034 (Fed. [read post]
11 Dec 2013, 7:55 pm
Depuy Spine, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 1:52 pm
The exemptions at issue here would yield precisely this result: they would leave unprotected all women who work for exempted business entities. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 5:00 am
Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. [read post]
21 Nov 2013, 6:30 am
©2013 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 8:36 am
©2013 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. [read post]
15 Nov 2013, 11:34 am
Pfizer, Inc., 914 F. [read post]
14 Nov 2013, 7:41 am
Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008), Wyeth v. [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 9:23 pm
Jews for Jesus, Inc., 482 U.S. 569 (1987) (stating that an airport’s proposed interpretation of a speech-restricting policy would be unconstitutionally vague, even if an airport were to be treated as a nonpublic forum); International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 9:09 pm
See Dayton Area Visually Impaired Persons, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Nov 2013, 9:08 am
Such “unapproved” or, more precisely, “unlabeled” uses may be appropriate and rational in certain circumstances, and may, in fact, reflect approaches to drug therapy that have been extensively reported in medical literature.The term “unapproved uses” is, to some extent, misle [read post]
4 Nov 2013, 3:00 am
AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300, 307 (Tenn. 2012); Aubrey E. [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 6:30 am
©2013 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. [read post]
28 Oct 2013, 9:01 pm
The first clause of the PDA amended Title VII, the main federal anti-discrimination law, to make clear that discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” is unlawful. [read post]
23 Oct 2013, 11:48 am
The district court found that the hospitals were covered federal subcontractors because they had contracts with an HMO to provide medical products and services covered by the HMO under the HMO’s contract with the US Office of Personnel Management OPM to provide medical coverage to US government employees. [read post]
21 Oct 2013, 8:43 am
©2013 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. [read post]
21 Oct 2013, 5:30 am
” 907 Whitehead St., Inc. v. [read post]
