Search for: "Steven Levin"
Results 501 - 520
of 642
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Mar 2009, 7:06 am
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a lengthy concurrence to challenge the arguments of both Stevens and Breyer, and to blame the Court itself for creating delays in death penalty cases. [read post]
6 Mar 2009, 9:22 am
On March 13, 2009, Steven Levin of Levin & Perconti will speak at the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys Illinois Chapter Meeting on Protecting the Rights of Elderly Clients in Personal Injury Matters. [read post]
6 Mar 2009, 7:02 am
Levine (06-1249). [read post]
6 Mar 2009, 5:01 am
Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 12:36 pm
Levine’s hand and forearm turned black, and they were amputated in two stages. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 12:02 pm
Justice Scalia, who wrote Riegel, dissented in Levine - conversely, Justice Stevens, who wrote Levine, did not concur in that part of Riegel. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 9:55 am
Levine. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 8:28 am
Levine case, yesterday. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 6:49 am
In writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said it was possible for Wyeth to comply with both federal and state laws in this matter. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 4:55 am
Justice Stevens's use of the presumption in Levine undoubtedly will further impede the effectiveness of conflict preemption arguments far beyond the drug and medical device arena. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 3:01 am
"State law remedies further consumer protection," Justice Stevens wrote, "by motivating manufacturers to produce safe and effective drugs and to give adequate warnings. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 2:17 am
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority in Wednesday's decision, Wyeth v. [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 1:54 pm
We conclude that they do not," Justice John Paul Stevens concluded in the court's majority opinion. [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 1:39 pm
Stevens writing for the majority, holding that federal law does not pre-empt Levine’s claim that Phenergan’s label did not contain an adequate warning about the IV-push method of administration. [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 11:50 am
This case isn’t a result of the majority’s effort to make people happy for Levine; it’s a case that both does justice to her and is consistent with existing law and sound national policy that Stevens has persuasively explained. [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 11:47 am
Levine, click here. [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 11:06 am
Levine. [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 10:06 am
Justice Stevens called out the Bush FDA there. [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 8:37 am
Levine (here) [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 8:21 am
Wyeth v .Levine!!!! [read post]
