Search for: "Williams v. United States Dept. of Justice" Results 41 - 57 of 57
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Feb 2023, 6:50 pm by admin
The school lost its accreditation in 1946, and closed.[19] After receiving this degree, Selikoff continued his efforts to return to Scotland, to complete his “triple qualification” for medical licensure in Scotland, which would allow him to sit for the licensing examination in one of the United States. 1943 – 1944. [read post]
16 Aug 2007, 7:20 am
United States, 649 A.2d 301, 308 (D.C. 1994) ("a patient waives the privilege as to relevant evidence by filing a lawsuit which places in issue the patient's medical condition"); Carson v. [read post]
7 Jun 2022, 5:00 pm by Michael Ehline
The late Justice Antonin Scalia restated the ancient common law rule in Deshaney v. [read post]
8 Feb 2008, 7:00 pm
You can separately subscribe to the IP Thinktank Global week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included:Record labels sue Baidu over providing links to file-sharing sites: (Ars Technica), (Techdirt), (Out-Law), (IP Law360), (Copyfight), Merck’s Fosamax patent expires: Watson Pharmaceuticals to distribute authorized generic version, Teva and Barr also launch FDA approved generic versions: (SmartBrief), (Patent Circle), (In … [read post]
23 Dec 2007, 8:00 pm
: (IPEG),More on the implementation of the London Agreement and patent cost reduction in Europe: (Patent Baristas),ECJ rules that EU legislative obligations cannot be enforced in any Member State if that legislation has not been published in the Official Journal in the language of that Member State (Case C-161/06  OlomoucSkoma-Lux sro v Celni reditelstvi Olumouc): (IPKat),EPO fighting complex appl [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 9:01 pm by John Dean
Dept. of Justice et al., flushes out about as much as can be learned about the current super-secret watch listing that has produced the No-Fly List. [read post]
19 Jul 2022, 5:54 am by Ryan Goodman
The speech, even if erroneous or knowingly false might fall outside First Amendment protections, especially if they were spoken by an ordinary person, not the President of the United States. [read post]