Search for: "State v. C. S. S. B." Results 4181 - 4200 of 15,305
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 May 2019, 8:32 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  It’s a more interesting problem than it looks b/c of worries about over- and underdeterrence. [read post]
3 May 2019, 6:51 am by Joy Waltemath
Moreover, California appellate courts apply intervening state supreme court rules retroactively when reviewing cases, even if the judgment in the trial court was entered prior to the supreme court ruling (Vazquez v. [read post]
2 May 2019, 11:10 am
Maximilian called this the “drug applicants” or “Humira” scenario, marked green.A, B and C file a priority application and only A and B claim priority in the subsequent application. [read post]
2 May 2019, 5:42 am by Charles Sartain
 Burlington argued that by this statute the Legislature intended that a royalty owner’s only cause of action for failure to pay royalties is under section 91.404(c). [read post]
1 May 2019, 7:51 am
[Y] by order of SPDC and / or a representative of SPDC attended the meeting (s) where these witnesses had to prepare / sign the statements prepared by others and / or [b.] [read post]
30 Apr 2019, 7:22 am
   This will be strictly regulated and product will need to be labelled as for export.Laëtitia Bénard Laëtitia Bénard (Allen & Overy LLP, Paris) then moved to Recent Developments on SPCs, in particular the CJEU decision in the Teva v Gilead case. [read post]