Search for: "In re Steven F. (1994)"
Results 41 - 60
of 82
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jul 2012, 7:08 am
Id. citing In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 6:02 am
., 494 F. [read post]
26 Apr 2007, 6:20 am
A copy of that brief is here.The FDA's Biffle brief concerned the propriety of state-law discovery rather than a state-law cause of action, but be that as it may, the point we're making is the same. [read post]
22 Jun 2009, 4:17 am
In re: Johns-Manville Corp., 517 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2008). [read post]
25 Mar 2009, 3:29 pm
Castro, 26 F.3d 557 (5th Cir. 1994)) and an unpublished Ninth Circuit case (Kwan) indicating that coram nobis relief is available for IAC claims. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 7:13 pm
Epidem. 771, 777 (1994). [read post]
13 Jul 2010, 8:59 am
They’re not. [read post]
12 Feb 2020, 5:34 pm
Becerra, 401 F. [read post]
22 Jan 2011, 6:05 pm
Zick (In re Zick), 931 F.2d 1124, 1126 (6th Cir. 1991) ("A bankruptcy court decision to dismiss pursuant to 11 U.S.C. [read post]
29 Sep 2010, 12:49 pm
See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. [read post]
17 Aug 2017, 5:38 am
It's billed as a comedy, but it has lots of overtones of social justice (it is not an accident that it was made by George Stevens during the war). [read post]
8 Apr 2021, 9:52 am
Borland case in the 1990s (affirmed without opinion by an equally divided Supreme Court, 4-4, with Justice Stevens recused), the software industry has assumed that interface specifications of this type were not protected by copyright. [read post]
22 Oct 2012, 3:21 am
re et Jean-Pierre Villaggi. [read post]
5 Jan 2023, 6:17 pm
Blount, 106 F. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 7:13 am
” 680 F. [read post]
14 Feb 2016, 6:25 pm
As was stated in Re P(DM) v. [read post]
14 Feb 2024, 9:05 pm
Eugene F. [read post]
27 Feb 2008, 10:00 am
This position is seen in Justice Stevens' dissent (joined in by Justices Souter and Ginsburg) from the Stoneridge majority opinion, asserting that the petitioners claimed that the respondents' actions fulfilled both the but-for and the proximate cause requirements, with the "respondents' acts [having] the foreseeable effect of causing petitioner to engage in the relevant securities transactions. [read post]
28 Dec 2018, 2:22 pm
Rothman’s complaints about reliance upon “statistical significance,” however, are well-known, and Rothman himself submitted an amicus brief16 in Daubert, a brief that has its own problems.17 In direct response to the Rothman Brief,18 Professor Alvin Feinstein filed an amicus brief in Daubert, wherein he acknowledged that meta-analyses and re-analyses can be valid, but these techniques are subject to many sources of invalidity, and their employment by careful practitioners… [read post]
12 Apr 2011, 12:55 pm
The Friedrich court was referring to In Re Bates, High Court of Justice, Family Division, Royal Courts of London, No. [read post]
