Search for: "MATTER OF D S N" Results 5481 - 5500 of 5,781
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 May 2008, 8:15 pm
Sanford, the plaintiff’s lawyer, then called the Law Tribune to shed more light on the matter. [read post]
29 May 2008, 10:00 am
Respondent's FDA expert similarly "disagree[d] with FDA's conclusions" to approve Phenergan's labeling. [read post]
28 May 2008, 6:37 am
" The dissenters argued that the particular circumstances of N's case, especially the unanimous medical opinions in the record that her return to Uganda would almost inevitably lead to her deterioration and death due to lack of access to adequate treatment, placed her case much closer to the precedent of D v. the United Kingdom than the Court was willing to admit. [read post]
23 May 2008, 10:17 pm
The trial court dismissed the matter for failure to state a claim because the plaintiff had no present injury, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. [read post]
23 May 2008, 7:05 am
On the other hand, today the opinion would look a little silly, and we'd think that it had missed the most important point. [read post]
22 May 2008, 3:43 am
Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. [read post]
16 May 2008, 3:29 pm
Id., slip op. at 3 n.3.The defense moved to suppress Wheeler's confession. [read post]
15 May 2008, 5:57 pm
Some of the posts featured in today's update focus on that decision, while the rest deal with a broad range of other legal matters. [read post]
15 May 2008, 4:22 pm
Shortly thereafter Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) objected to the approval, threatening legislation to halt the deal. [read post]
13 May 2008, 6:00 am
If they're operating near the edge of the law, they'd better be darn sure that the devices they sell help people and do no harm, as was apparently true of Endotec's devices.Finally, society should get its act together: Let's fund the FDA sufficiently to permit it to do its job, and let's get beneficial drugs and devices on the market as quickly as reasonably possible. [read post]
4 May 2008, 11:08 am
Judge Gorenstein's opinion considered the entire matter, although he distinguished the three cases preceding this one, as the information sought by the government was only related to phone calls made by the user of the target phone, not the continuous communication between cell sites and a phone not engaged in a call. [read post]
2 May 2008, 7:00 am
Here is IP Think Tank’s weekly selection of top intellectual property news breaking in the blogosphere and internet. [read post]
1 May 2008, 11:21 am
Oh yes - and it still didn't matter that the defendants were making and selling legal and non-defective products.He lost too, in Spitzer v. [read post]