Search for: "Goode v. Department of Health" Results 501 - 520 of 2,509
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Aug 2021, 1:48 pm by Peter Briccetti
At the end of July, a bipartisan group of senators led by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced long-awaited legislation that would update a False Claims Act technicality caused by the 2016 Supreme Court case, Health Services v. [read post]
13 Aug 2021, 4:00 am by Jim Sedor
Rand Paul revealed his wife bought stock in Gilead Sciences, which makes an antiviral drug used to treat COVID-19, in February 2020, before it was classified as a pandemic by the World Health Organization. [read post]
11 Aug 2021, 1:31 pm by Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle
 Lubin Austermuehle’s track record of defending and prosecuting class-actions includes that the firm obtained a $40 million settlement in the Erikson v. [read post]
11 Aug 2021, 12:52 pm by Alvaro Marañon, Benjamin Wittes
It’s a divisive topic, with companies and experts divided over whether a ban on paying ransoms would actually disrupt the ransomware ecosystem and whether such efforts would do more harm than good. [read post]
30 Jul 2021, 3:46 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
It should be read together with the Court’s judgment in R (on the application of BF (Eritrea)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 38. [read post]
28 Jul 2021, 4:42 pm by Bona Law PC
Department of Justice Antitrust Division, it is likely we will see some important antitrust enforcement action from both agencies very soon aimed at corporate concentration, especially the big tech sector. [read post]
20 Jul 2021, 9:17 am by Phil Dixon
After the jury convicted on both counts, the defendant claimed he needed an evaluation of his mental health for the first time. [read post]
18 Jul 2021, 7:37 am by Andrew Delaney
In this case, the Commissioner of the Department of Labor reasoned that the old language applied. [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 4:27 am by Peter Groves
In Secretary of State for Health v Servier Laboratories Ltd, where the loss arose because there were no generic equivalents of the invalidly-patented drug, the Supreme Court held that the "dealing requirement" laid down in OBG Ltd v Allan [2008] 1 AC 1, which states that the unlawful means should have affected the third party’s freedom to deal with the claimant, is a necessary element of the tort. [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 4:27 am by Peter Groves
In Secretary of State for Health v Servier Laboratories Ltd, where the loss arose because there were no generic equivalents of the invalidly-patented drug, the Supreme Court held that the "dealing requirement" laid down in OBG Ltd v Allan [2008] 1 AC 1, which states that the unlawful means should have affected the third party’s freedom to deal with the claimant, is a necessary element of the tort. [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 1:51 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
 In summary, the dealing requirement is part of the ratio of OBG v Allan [2008] 1 AC 1 and no good or sufficient reason has been shown why the Court should depart from the relatively recent decision of the House of Lords in OBG in accordance with the 1966 Practice Statement. [read post]