Search for: "LAMBERT v. STATE" Results 461 - 480 of 598
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Jan 2016, 4:16 pm by INFORRM
, Amy Lambert and Louise Benski, Privacy and Information Law Blog. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 9:37 am by Conor McEvily
”  The Court also heard oral arguments yesterday in United States v. [read post]
24 Jul 2023, 4:14 am by Peter J. Sluka
Gallagher v Lambert In 1989, a divided Court of Appeals held that the at-will employment agreement trumps any heightened duty that the majority would otherwise have to exercise the corporation’s redemption rights: “There being no dispute that the employer had the unfettered discretion to fire plaintiff at any time, we should not redefine the precise measuring device and scope of the agreement” (Gallagher v Lambert, 74 NY2d 562, 567 [1989]). [read post]
3 Jul 2008, 7:26 pm
State-law injury issues not addressed.Wood v. [read post]
7 May 2009, 6:08 am
As the court stated in McClain:[A]nother methodological problem undermines [the expert's] analogical approach. . . . [read post]
16 Dec 2010, 4:13 pm by INFORRM
A candid camera, Paul Lambert, New Law Journal N.L.J. (2010) Vol.160 No.7445 pg.1699-1700. [read post]
26 Dec 2007, 8:05 am
Perhaps a favorable decision in Warner-Lambert v. [read post]
1 Mar 2019, 5:47 am
Notably, Mr Justice Arnold considered the principles of insufficiency established by Warner-Lambert v Actavis applicable, even though the use of the antibody to treat psoriasis was a first medical use. [read post]
23 May 2011, 5:00 am by Kevin
From a complaint filed last week in San Francisco:  Michael M ____ v. [read post]
27 Dec 2011, 6:13 am by Kiera Flynn
Petitioners’ reply   United States Steel Corp. v. [read post]
30 May 2013, 2:47 pm by Kelly Phillips Erb
Underwood, who hails from the Sooner State, said about her donation: I have watched the devastation in my home state of Oklahoma over the past several days with great sadness. [read post]
11 Dec 2018, 4:00 am by Edith Roberts
The justices also issued one opinion yesterday: In United States v. [read post]