Search for: "Labelle v. State" Results 6821 - 6840 of 8,031
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Apr 2023, 9:22 am by Miquel Montañá (Clifford Chance)
In this regard, in its judgment of 12 December 2013 (case C-493/12, Eli Lilly v Human Genome Sciences), the CJEU made the following observations: “30. [read post]
8 Apr 2022, 10:53 am by Kevin LaCroix
While First Solar suggested at argument that the ambiguity label might also be slapped on the provision, it did not press the issue and the court effectively ignored it. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 3:01 am by GuestPost
  This trend is evident in relation to American stop and search powers (see, for example, US v Ornelas). [read post]
8 Jul 2024, 3:00 am by M@jux-@dmin
Other states generally define gross negligence as reckless disregard or wanton and willful behavior. [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 6:53 pm
” The case, from a sports perspective of law, may turn on what the Supreme Court meant in the 1957 decision in Radovitch v. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 6:02 pm by Larry Ribstein
J. 857, 870-73 (2009); United States v. [read post]
16 Nov 2019, 7:53 am by INFORRM
Decisions this Week United StatesSpeech First, INC. v. [read post]
12 May 2010, 4:30 am by Jim Dedman
Yesterday, nearly thirteen years after the accident at issue, the New York Court of Appeals, that state's highest court, affirmed that verdict in Adams v. [read post]
24 Sep 2018, 8:19 pm by Georgina Hey (AU)
”[3] The Code also requires that “if a food name is used in connection with the sale of a food (for example in the labelling), the sale is taken to be a sale of the food as the named food unless the context makes it clear that this is not the intention” (emphasis added).[4] Interestingly, one of the specific examples provided under this section states that if the context within which foods such as soy milk or soy ice cream are sold is indicated by use of the word… [read post]
31 Oct 2012, 4:30 pm by Pamela Wolf
Federal and state law compliance-related issues may be confusing and challenging for employers. [read post]