Search for: "Label v Label"
Results 7821 - 7840
of 13,306
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Mar 2012, 12:00 am
I have always considered them, as Justice Scalia labeled them, “a necessary evil.” Where I differ with Justice Scalia, I guess, is in my belief that they are evil because they are necessary. [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 11:35 am
The Schultz Doctrine does not label as stolen a cultural object that simply was unlawfully exported from a foreign nation. [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 11:33 am
Productions, LLC v. [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 7:30 am
v=DhQW9D5IsTk [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 6:54 am
Since trademark licenses generally cannot be assigned without the consent of the licensor (see Miller v. [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 6:54 am
Since trademark licenses generally cannot be assigned without the consent of the licensor (see Miller v. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 10:00 am
Domestic v. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 6:46 am
Only video games rated "EC," or "early childhood", would be exempt from the labeling requirement.It is possible that this requirement of near-universal labeling is an attempt to avoid the recent Supreme Court decision in Brown v. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 2:30 am
Recently, Reglan lawsuit plaintiff Bobby Tate Bowman had his Reglan lawsuit dismissed when the judge in the case decided that defendant Teva’s argument — that all of Bowman’s claims in his lawsuit were preempted under the Mensing v. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 10:38 pm
The March 14 opinion is Christou v. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 9:03 pm
At the heart of the approach that Congress selected is the new law’s Section 1501 (now codified as Section 5000A): popularly, it is known as the “individual mandate”; technically, it is labeled the “minimum coverage provision.” It would require most Americans to obtain health insurance by January 1, 2014, or pay a financial penalty — perhaps as high as $3,000 — with their tax return. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 3:29 pm
Instead, they came about as a consequence of FDA’s decisions following a 1999 federal appeals court ruling (Pearson v. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 3:01 pm
The morning session was labeled "Day - Eight" - it should have been labeled as "Day - Seven - Morning Session. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 12:31 pm
Here is the abstract: In Holder v. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 10:22 am
So said the Connecticut Superior Court in Zelle v. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 7:32 am
USA [JURIST report] that graphic cigarette label warnings [JURIST news archive] are constitutional. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 5:39 am
Cuevas v. [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 9:06 pm
But the Court returned to a strict interpretation of the ban in 1962, in the case of Enochs v. [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 8:25 pm
It shall be an affirmative defense to any charge under this Paragraph pursuant to this Section that the label on the container of the prescription drug or the manufacturer’s package of the drug does not contain a warning against combining the medication with alcohol. (6) The operator is under the influence of one or more drugs which are not controlled dangerous substances and which are legally obtainable with or without a prescription and the influence is caused by the operator… [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 8:25 pm
It shall be an affirmative defense to any charge under this Paragraph pursuant to this Section that the label on the container of the prescription drug or the manufacturer’s package of the drug does not contain a warning against combining the medication with alcohol. (6) The operator is under the influence of one or more drugs which are not controlled dangerous substances and which are legally obtainable with or without a prescription and the influence is caused by the operator… [read post]
