Search for: "G. A. F. v. State of Alabama" Results 61 - 80 of 88
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Apr 2011, 3:18 pm by Bexis
 At least the state of the art at the time of the plaintiff’s use applies – unknown and later discovered risks are irrelevant. [read post]
20 Feb 2017, 5:03 pm by Bill Marler
As a result, HDOH ordered this product embargoed (not to be sold, purchased, or consumed) throughout the state, and the temporary closure of all Genki Sushi restaurants on Oahu and Kauai. [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 3:06 am
Bowman (Michigan State), Abigail English (Center for Adolescent Health & the Law, N.C.), Gerard F. [read post]
28 Oct 2011, 7:00 am by Bexis
May 23, 2011) (applying Alabama law) (“no record evidence indicating that [the prescriber] read the warning that Plaintiff claims was inadequate”); Emody v. [read post]
31 Aug 2018, 11:59 am by John Floyd
Alabama that imposed requirements on both state and federal courts to ensure that guilty pleas are intelligently and voluntarily made. [read post]
12 Sep 2011, 3:35 am by Marie Louise
(IPBiz)   US Patents – Decisions CAFC reverses DNH in Markem-Imaje Corporation v Zipher; Newman partially dissents (IPBiz) District Court Nevada: Plaintiff need not produce licenses involving unasserted patents where licenses involving patents-in-suit have been produced: Bally Technologies, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Apr 2024, 10:08 am by admin
Many of the silicone cases were pending in a multi-district litigation, MDL 926, before Judge Sam Pointer, in the Northern District of Alabama. [read post]
23 Jan 2009, 1:00 am
(Managing Intellectual Property) (Law360) (Out-Law) ECJ rules German music distributor cannot sell two Bob Dylan compilation albums because Sony owns rights to songs in question: Sony Music Entertainment (Germany) GmbH v Falcon Neue Medien Vertrieb GmbH (IPKat) (Law360) ECJ: Date set for Advocate General’s opinion in L'Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC, Laboratoire Garnier & Cie v Bellure NV, Malaika… [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 10:27 am by Badrinath Srinivasan
In particular, because of the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]