Search for: "Johnson v. New Jersey" Results 521 - 537 of 537
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Jun 2007, 4:26 pm
Shares of New Brunswick, New Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson fell 44 cents to $62.33 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. [read post]
26 May 2007, 11:26 pm
On Sunday, May 27, 2007, the Newark Star-Ledger got around to observing that KSR v. [read post]
24 May 2007, 10:40 am
Johnson & Johnson, 700 F. [read post]
22 May 2007, 5:55 am
In short, the record permits no dispute about the fact that the area in which the headband was found was within the curtilage and subject to the protection of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution. [read post]
19 May 2007, 10:12 am
Five of the states which have resumed executions, Connecticut, Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon and Pennsylvania, have yet to execute a "non-volunteer". [read post]
3 May 2007, 12:07 pm
AstraZeneca's Nexium: This slow-moving case in New Jersey is in the pre-trial phase, but is subject to the fundamental problem that separation of the enantiomers of omeprazole is likely to be considered obvious. [read post]
3 Apr 2007, 11:30 am
Super. 313 (1987)]: Transcript of Proceedings 6 v. (1988) New Jersey. [read post]
17 Mar 2007, 6:35 pm
If, for instance, we were to uphold the District Court's application of a per se rule here, we might nevertheless conclude, in some future case, that an otherwise identical arrest occurring in New Jersey is reasonable and constitutional. [read post]
15 Feb 2007, 8:26 am
District Court for the District of New Jersey preliminarily enjoined Mylan from selling generic Topamax, pending a final resolution of the case. [read post]
19 Nov 2006, 9:31 pm
"In the news, Texas new death sentences this year dropped to just 14 new death sentences from about 40 a year at the turn of the century. [read post]
24 Oct 2006, 9:55 pm
District Court for District of New Jersey wrote the opinion, in which he concluded that the patent in suit is likely to withstand Mylan's obviousness defense because Mylan had not presented suffcient evidence of a "motivation, suggestion, or teaching" to modify the prior art. [read post]