Search for: "State v. Board of Medical Examiners"
Results 701 - 720
of 929
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jul 2015, 1:00 pm
Case's 9th District Court ruling derived from Texas v. [read post]
27 Jul 2009, 7:18 am
: Whirlpool Corporation v Kenwood Ltd (IPKat) EWHC (Pat): EP 258 valid in Netherlands but not UK: Novartis AG and Cibavision AG v Johnson & Johnson Medical Ltd & Ors (IPKat) EWHC (QB): When lawfully seized items can’t be retained under s 22 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (1709 Copyright Blog) United States US General Obama IP vacancies (IP Frontline) Kappos confirmation hearing set for 29 July (IP Watchdog) (IAM) (Peter… [read post]
18 Aug 2015, 7:52 pm
The EEOC says Magnolia’s prohibited discriminatory practices included only offering positions to certain applicants under the condition that the applicants pass a medical examination, as well as discharging or revoking job offers when it learned of or received records of prior medical conditions or current medical restrictions. [read post]
22 Jun 2010, 12:41 pm
Petitioner’s reply Title: Board of Trustees o [read post]
20 Mar 2022, 9:14 am
V. [read post]
20 Mar 2022, 9:14 am
V. [read post]
17 Feb 2020, 9:01 am
The proceeds of the fraudulent scheme were allegedly laundered through international shell corporations and used to purchase exotic automobiles, yachts and luxury real estate in the United States and abroad. [read post]
6 Jun 2021, 4:17 pm
The European Data Protection Board has issued its Annual Report 2020: Ensuring data protection rights in a changing world The Hawktalk blog has a post “Missing data protection safeguards with respect to NHS Digital’s national database of medical records“. [read post]
4 Jun 2008, 3:28 am
Other Studies Several investigations besides the three NHTSA field studies examined the performance of SFSTs in detecting BAC levels. [read post]
3 Feb 2020, 1:37 pm
Cir. 2019) (affirming Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions finding patent claims ineligible) with Trading Techs. [read post]
7 Feb 2008, 10:46 am
We've seen twice before what happens when plaintiffs start to get squeezed by preemption - during the initial flowering of the preemption defense in medical device cases that was snuffed out by Medtronic v. [read post]
18 May 2009, 5:24 am
’ (China Law Blog) Europe ECJ finds similar marks on wine and glasses not likely to cause confusion: Waterford Wedgewood plc v Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd, OHIM (Class 46) (IPKat) AG Colomer opines in Maple leaf trade mark battle: joined cases American Clothing Associates SA v OHIM and OHIM v American Clothing Associates SA (IPKat) (Excess Copyright) CFI: Restitutio and time limits: how does the law stand now for CTMs? [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 5:59 pm
Board of Chosen Freeholders, a case that the U.S. [read post]
9 May 2011, 7:39 am
") Finally, last month, the state Board of Examiners of Psychologists reprimanded Denkowski, fined him $5,500, banned him from performing such evaluations in the future, and dismissed all the complaints against him. [read post]
10 Dec 2017, 4:18 pm
In the case of Toronto Real Estate Board v Commissioner of Competition 2017 FCA 236 the Federal Court of appeal held that new consent was only need where information was used for a new purpose, not where it is distributed by new methods. [read post]
4 Jul 2024, 9:05 pm
Supreme Court has dismissed Moyle v. [read post]
15 Mar 2011, 2:44 pm
Two Bush administration officials, former National Security Administration (NSA) director and former CIA director Michael V. [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 9:00 am
This article examines the history and direction of the CMS’s Fraud Prevention efforts and provides a thorough discussion of UPICs, highlighting their purpose, jurisdiction, and functions. [read post]
8 May 2009, 9:53 am
by Scott Hervey It’s been five years since the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dramatically changed the way Untied States trademark registrations are handled. [read post]
17 Dec 2008, 7:16 pm
Grape, No. 07-3682 District Court order allowing the Government to forcibly medicate defendant, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1291, is affirmed where the Government has presented sufficiently important interests to forcibly medicate defendant, an incarcerated paranoid schizophrenic charged with child sex offenses. [read post]
