Search for: "State v. Hatch"
Results 381 - 400
of 794
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jul 2010, 1:12 pm
For example, FDA stated in the preamble to its 1989 proposed regulations implementing the Hatch-Waxman Amendments that “FDA will consider whether a drug contains a previously approved active moiety on a case-by-case basis. [read post]
27 Mar 2017, 8:15 am
To see what we mean, one need only look to United States v. [read post]
18 Jan 2024, 9:16 am
Lundbeck A/S, et al. v. [read post]
10 Nov 2010, 3:38 am
No “anti-arbitrating” presumption to resolving grievances alleging a violation of a collective bargaining agreementWatertown CSD v Watertown Education AssociationIndian River CSD v Indian River Education AssociationCourt of Appeals, Nos. 50 & 51, joint decision issued 93 NY2d 132In numerous decisions, New York State courts have frowned on the use of arbitration to settle disputes between public employers and unions unless the collective bargaining agreement… [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 1:10 pm
Lopez (1995), United States v. [read post]
13 Aug 2010, 2:21 pm
Hixson v. [read post]
6 Dec 2009, 5:49 pm
The tag for Henderson v Sciateco is most interesting in terms of relevance.The case refers to the recent California appellate court decision which held that public policy supports state court approved factoring transactions. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 8:16 am
In United States v. [read post]
24 Oct 2008, 7:49 pm
In one of those cases, Schering-Plough Corp. v. [read post]
13 Jul 2010, 7:35 am
Johnson note that in United States v. [read post]
27 Jun 2019, 10:53 am
Circuit’s decision in Qassim v. [read post]
22 Mar 2010, 5:58 pm
State, 17 March 2010, HERE. [read post]
11 Dec 2023, 7:43 am
Inc. v. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 3:38 pm
However, in FTC v. [read post]
14 Sep 2009, 6:01 am
Buono, United States v. [read post]
23 Nov 2009, 7:13 am
Medtronic, but did not find preemption in the context of prescription drugs on the facts of Wyeth v. [read post]
1 Dec 2008, 9:27 pm
Bd. , No. 073745 In a claim for violation of the Hatch Act which prohibits state or local officer or employee from being a candidate for elective office, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant-Merit Systems Protection Board is affirmed over claims that: 1) the district court erred in concluding that Board did not abuse its discretion in determining that plaintiff's violation of the Hatch Act, regulating the political activity of state employees who… [read post]
3 Jul 2007, 10:47 am
The Court stated that the Graham v. [read post]
5 Sep 2007, 11:40 am
Case: Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Sep 2007, 11:40 am
Case: Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. [read post]
