Search for: "Commonwealth v. Labelle"
Results 61 - 80
of 138
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Feb 2012, 11:29 am
June 25, 2010) (“application of the fraud on the market theory was rejected”; citing “evidence that doctors . . . prescribed off-label use of [the drug] to class members for reasons wholly unrelated to defendants’ alleged fraudulent marketing”); UFCW Local 1776 v. [read post]
3 Jun 2013, 12:44 pm
Six short weeks after the April 22 argument in Hillman v. [read post]
10 Nov 2014, 8:39 am
Rossdale Group, LLC Spam Claims Covered by Contract’s Indemnity Clause–Commonwealth Marketing Group v. [read post]
26 Jun 2007, 7:00 am
See, e.g., Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. [read post]
16 Oct 2020, 3:32 am
The (supposed) test The leading case on professional advisors’ potential conflict of interest is Bolkiah v KPMG [1999] 2 AC 222¸where professional advisors (in an analogous position to solicitors) formerly acted for an applicant who then wished to restrain them from acting for its opponent. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 2:30 pm
All the while Maya v. [read post]
25 Oct 2011, 6:37 am
United States v. [read post]
29 Aug 2010, 6:31 am
There have been a number of decisions in media law cases in Commonwealth jurisdictions. [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 7:09 am
See Mein v. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 11:55 am
It may well be foreseeable that competitors will mimic a product design or label. [read post]
27 May 2009, 2:30 am
"In United States v. [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 8:04 am
Commonwealth, 2011 WL 2078563 (Ky.App. 2011), the answer is “yes. [read post]
7 Sep 2012, 3:23 pm
Ali is another such case:By its own terms, however, the VCPA does not apply to “[a]ny aspect of a consumer transaction which aspect is authorized under laws or regulations of this Commonwealth or the United States, or the formal advisory opinions of any regulatory body or official of this Commonwealth or the United States. [read post]
13 Apr 2014, 2:43 pm
We are currently in the midst of the second inquiry within three years from two successive Commonwealth governments."). [read post]
27 Apr 2016, 7:18 am
U.S. v. [read post]
18 Oct 2020, 4:59 pm
Clear labelling of incentivised posts is required under UK consumer protection law, so that people are not misled. [read post]
20 Sep 2007, 12:02 pm
., Carlin v. [read post]
8 Aug 2024, 8:16 am
Driehaus, 814 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. 2016); Commonwealth v. [read post]
20 Jun 2016, 4:00 am
Rooke labelled “organized pseudo-legal commercial argument” or OPCA litigants. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 11:28 am
However, Barrett says the problem Freed faced was that his Facebook page was not labeled as official or private. [read post]
