Search for: "State v. Doctor"
Results 6081 - 6100
of 9,597
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Dec 2021, 11:59 am
At the start of this year, Nokia v. [read post]
31 May 2012, 2:01 pm
Clients do have a benefit cap of $2,000 per month (except for a few Category V drugs), which is sufficient to support triple and quadruple combination therapies. [read post]
27 Jul 2015, 7:18 am
” Matter of state law. [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 12:23 pm
The case involves a doctor at a state university medical center in Dallas. [read post]
4 Nov 2013, 9:08 am
The court quoted Planned Parenthood v. [read post]
2 Dec 2014, 8:22 am
Arguing for the woman involved in Young v. [read post]
25 Mar 2024, 12:39 pm
The FDA maintains that they do not, because the individual doctors do not prescribe mifepristone and are not obligated to do anything as a result of the FDA’s decision to allow other doctors to prescribe the drug. [read post]
28 Oct 2021, 2:56 pm
(See, e.g., Cross v. [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 6:00 am
Mulligan V, Attorney Do you know what Tort Reform is? [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 6:26 am
On April 20, 2012, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals released its decision in the case of Mobile Airport Authority v. [read post]
22 Apr 2022, 7:51 am
V Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. [read post]
17 Feb 2022, 7:37 am
Russo, striking down a near verbatim abortion provision requiring that doctors obtain admitting privileges as a condition to perform abortions in Louisiana. [read post]
28 Dec 2011, 1:13 pm
In the recent decision, Wendell v. [read post]
17 Jul 2007, 10:50 am
U.S. v. [read post]
6 Aug 2014, 2:34 pm
DePuy argued that plaintiffs’ state law design defect claims were preempted under Pliva v. [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 1:21 pm
United States, 64 F.3d 206 (5th Cir. 1995); Barnes v. [read post]
14 Oct 2022, 3:00 am
Two Clauses Found Invalid The divisional court referenced the 2017 decision of Wood v. [read post]
14 Oct 2022, 3:00 am
Two Clauses Found Invalid The divisional court referenced the 2017 decision of Wood v. [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 11:53 pm
Judge William Alsup stated that under Barker v. [read post]
