Search for: "T-UP v. Consumer Protection"
Results 4661 - 4680
of 4,767
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Sep 2007, 1:11 am
Consumers and taxpayers need federal intervention. [read post]
5 Sep 2007, 7:39 am
And, while communication-by-communication investigation may well turn up the required factual support, undertaking that investigation is hugely time-consuming and expensive, particularly since outside litigation counsel, not the in-house attorneys involved, often are called on to assert and defend the privilege claims. [read post]
20 Aug 2007, 8:10 am
§ 808.1(d)).Then the court analyzes Buckman Co. v. [read post]
18 Aug 2007, 6:50 am
If judges couldn't enforce them at all, this might undermine the very rights they protected. [read post]
16 Aug 2007, 7:20 am
Jensen, 534 N.W.2d 361, 368 (Wis. 1995) ("the physician-patient privilege did not protect communications relevant to or within the scope of discovery"); Stigliano v. [read post]
6 Aug 2007, 5:56 am
PepsiCo, Inc. v. # 1 Wholesale, LLC., 2007 WL 2142294 (N.D. [read post]
2 Aug 2007, 11:44 am
But that wasn't the device at issue.OK. [read post]
23 Jul 2007, 6:58 am
The court summed up why a consumer alleging fraud in the marketing of a prescription drug shouldn't win: "The ultimate consumer is not in fact free to act on claims made in advertising. [read post]
12 Jul 2007, 8:27 pm
to a new paradigm of cooperation and collaboration that optimizes use of our respective resources and maximizes consumer protection benefits for customers.We have made significant progress, for example, working with our state counterparts to improve consumer complaint information sharing. [read post]
9 Jul 2007, 8:48 am
Though the FJC doesn't get into this level of detail in its report, I'd wager that this is because "fraud" encompass state consumer protection or "deceptive trade practices" claims brought under state statutes. [read post]
6 Jul 2007, 4:29 am
All drugs are prescription drugs unless the FDA "finds such requirements are not necessary for the protection of the public health by reason of the drug's toxicity or other potentiality for harmful effect. [read post]
5 Jul 2007, 2:50 pm
o A district court in Wisconsin held that because a consumer could have elected to save up for a car instead of seeking financing, the consumer had a meaningful choice and, therefore, the contract was conscionable. [read post]
5 Jul 2007, 7:12 am
Friedman, Reinventing Consumer Protection, DePaul Law Review, Fall 2007. [read post]
3 Jul 2007, 6:22 am
We'd be interested in what turns up.* * * *Unfortunately, we also have to update our "Strike Suits" post in a second, unrelated, way. [read post]
2 Jul 2007, 3:37 pm
See the BNA write-up and Venkat's writeup. [read post]
28 Jun 2007, 10:16 am
Even an ideal world isn't that ideal.In the real world, well, the FDA doesn't give you awards (let alone protection from suit) just for doing what you're supposed to do. [read post]
21 Jun 2007, 11:10 am
Daum v. [read post]
20 Jun 2007, 3:15 pm
Unfortunately due to an A/V error the link to the hearing was removed. [read post]
19 Jun 2007, 9:15 am
Butler, THE BANKRUPTCY ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2005 -- BUSINESS BANKRUPTCY AMENDMENTS, 28 Cal. [read post]
15 Jun 2007, 11:00 am
By Eric Goldman Browne v. [read post]
