Search for: "HENRY v. RISK" Results 401 - 420 of 549
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Oct 2014, 12:09 pm by Schachtman
His advocacy of a connection between asbestos and extrapulmonary cancers, his claim that all asbestos varieties were equivalent in potency for causing mesothelioma, and his risk assessments of total attributable asbestos risks are just some examples of where Selikoff outran his scientific headlights. [read post]
27 Mar 2019, 1:00 am by Thaddeus Mason Pope, JD, PhD
Science, Scholarship, and Policymaking Scott Burris, Temple University, Science, Interdisciplinarity, and Health Law Scholarship Kevin Outterson, Boston University, Bad Science Leads to Bad Legal Scholarship Joanna Sax, California Western School of Law, Consumer Perceptions of Risk in Various Areas of Biotechnology C. [read post]
22 Sep 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
A second follow-up case, Steinmetz et al v Germany, was filed in 2022. [read post]
13 Nov 2008, 3:20 pm
Cooper jokingly describes this hearing as Paulson v. [read post]
16 Aug 2008, 2:43 am
– discussion of Washington Post article on Ismed’s efforts to promote follow-on biologics approval pathway: (Patent Baristas), (Patent Docs), US: Congressional fact-finding on follow-on biologics: (Patent Docs), US: David v Monsanto: Biotechnology patent ‘exhaustion’ after Quanta, Supreme Court petition: (Hal Wegner), US: Ulysses Pharmaceuticals announces issuance of patent for novel class of ant [read post]
17 Mar 2014, 6:14 am
It contains an autopsy, eyewitness testimony from ordinary Parisians, and a step-by-step account of the police inquiry into the crime — a catastrophic event that would plunge France into civil war and lead to a devastating English invasion under Henry V. [read post]
22 Oct 2010, 8:18 am by Adam Wagner
Case Law: Bernard Gray v UVW – privacy injunctions and anonymity – Henry Fox – Inforrm’s Blog: Mr Justice Tugendhat has returned to the subject of anonymity in privacy actions. [read post]
16 Sep 2020, 8:12 am by Alicia Maule
Virginia (2002) is that they present a special risk of wrongful conviction. [read post]
21 May 2009, 12:00 am
I see no reason to suppose they did so for any reason other than the considerable downside risk they would avoid" (paragraphs 30-33).This now seems to be the end of the line for Aerotel, in the UK at least. [read post]