Search for: "LaBelle v. LaBelle"
Results 461 - 480
of 12,159
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Sep 2008, 9:14 pm
The company argues that the state law is pre-empted by a federal law requiring drug labels to be approved by the FDA.The question on which the Supreme Court granted cert in Wyeth v. [read post]
23 Apr 2013, 10:52 am
For example, in Ross v. [read post]
4 Dec 2009, 4:35 am
” Lockett v. [read post]
6 Mar 2013, 4:30 am
See Menges v. [read post]
30 Nov 2015, 8:00 am
Schaeffler v. [read post]
30 Nov 2015, 8:00 am
Schaeffler v. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 10:08 am
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Thursday in POM Wonderful LLC v. [read post]
7 Aug 2014, 5:39 am
Lexmark Int’l v. [read post]
30 Nov 2015, 8:00 am
Schaeffler v. [read post]
30 Nov 2015, 8:00 am
Schaeffler v. [read post]
22 May 2023, 9:52 pm
Koblitz —Well, it’s official: The Federal Circuit decision in GSK v. [read post]
31 Aug 2021, 10:00 am
Kay v. [read post]
28 Apr 2016, 12:04 pm
Criminal procedure — Motion to suppress evidence — Labels on prescription bottles On March 9, 2015, Antoine Anthony Newman (“Newman”) was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County of: 1) possession with intent to distribute heroin; 2) possession of a firearm with a nexis to drug trafficking; and 3) illegal possession ... [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 5:23 am
Cox v. [read post]
15 Dec 2015, 6:26 am
As the plaintiff, the entity can choose the forum in which to sue, and given the Caronia v. [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 10:06 am
United States v. [read post]
19 May 2022, 8:36 am
Rawson v. [read post]
18 Jul 2024, 11:49 am
Whiteside v. [read post]
23 Apr 2025, 8:48 pm
Noonan -- The Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court decision that the label for a generic drug obtained from an ANDA would not induce infringement by reciting optional drug storage conditions the read on the NDA holder's Orange Book-listed patents, in Metacel Pharmaceuticals LLC v. [read post]
28 Mar 2013, 8:56 am
In its unanimous decision, the three-judge panel wrote that “not only could PLIVA have independently updated its labeling to match that of the branded manufacturer … it had a federal duty to do so,” (Fulgenzi v. [read post]
