Search for: "California v. Force"
Results 6001 - 6020
of 6,451
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Aug 2008, 9:07 pm
The plaintiff 'allege[s] that federal officials have devised a strategic plan of targeted enforcement that has had the intended effect of rendering California's medical marijuana laws impossible to implement and thereby forcing California and its political subdivisions to recriminalize medial marijuana.' [read post]
22 Aug 2008, 2:07 pm
The plaintiff 'allege[s] that federal officials have devised a strategic plan of targeted enforcement that has had the intended effect of rendering California's medical marijuana laws impossible to implement and thereby forcing California and its political subdivisions to recriminalize medial marijuana.' [read post]
22 Aug 2008, 2:07 pm
The plaintiff 'allege[s] that federal officials have devised a strategic plan of targeted enforcement that has had the intended effect of rendering California's medical marijuana laws impossible to implement and thereby forcing California and its political subdivisions to recriminalize medial marijuana.' [read post]
21 Aug 2008, 3:03 pm
Citing the Court's decision in Lujan v. [read post]
19 Aug 2008, 8:28 pm
Spoons, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Aug 2008, 8:02 pm
The case facts are simple: The debtor owned a large parcel of land in Burbank, California. [read post]
18 Aug 2008, 7:40 pm
As one California court recently pointed out in Kelly v. [read post]
16 Aug 2008, 2:43 am
– discussion of Washington Post article on Ismed’s efforts to promote follow-on biologics approval pathway: (Patent Baristas), (Patent Docs), US: Congressional fact-finding on follow-on biologics: (Patent Docs), US: David v Monsanto: Biotechnology patent ‘exhaustion’ after Quanta, Supreme Court petition: (Hal Wegner), US: Ulysses Pharmaceuticals announces issuance of patent for novel class of ant [read post]
15 Aug 2008, 6:36 pm
Corp. v. [read post]
15 Aug 2008, 6:13 pm
As a result, the court in Pfizer was forced to address head on whether the pass-on defense was available to antitrust defendants in California. [read post]
15 Aug 2008, 12:32 am
In Doe v. [read post]
13 Aug 2008, 7:10 pm
In Doe v. [read post]
11 Aug 2008, 3:14 pm
Preventive Services MIPPA authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (“the Secretary”) to expand Medicare coverage to additional preventive services that (1) identify medical conditions or risk factors classified as grade A or B by the United States Preventive Services Task Force, (2) are reasonable and necessary for prevention or early detection, and (3) are appropriate for Medicare beneficiaries. [read post]
9 Aug 2008, 4:09 pm
Garcia-Aguilar v. [read post]
9 Aug 2008, 1:50 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Thinktank Global week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: The end of William Patry’s blog: (Patry Copyright Blog), (Excess Copyright), (Patently-O), (Chicago IP Litigation Blog), (Michael Geist), (The Fire of Genius), (Techdirt), (Patry Copyright Blog), Kitchin J clarifies scope of biotech patents, in particular gene sequence patents: Eli Lilly & Co v Human Genome Sciences:… [read post]
8 Aug 2008, 6:36 pm
Corp. v. [read post]
8 Aug 2008, 6:13 pm
As a result, the court in Pfizer was forced to address head on whether the pass-on defense was available to antitrust defendants in California. [read post]
7 Aug 2008, 9:15 am
The city also accuses all of the defendants of negligent misrepresentation and violation of the California business code.The second suit, entitled City of Los Angeles v. [read post]
6 Aug 2008, 10:05 am
Supreme Court in MedellÃÂn v. [read post]
5 Aug 2008, 5:51 am
Starbucks Corp. court guessed that the California Supreme Court, if deciding the issue, would require only that an employer offer meal breaks, without forcing workers to take those breaks. [read post]
