Search for: "State v. Doctor"
Results 9441 - 9460
of 9,600
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 May 2007, 1:32 am
Hoon Sup Kim NASSAU COUNTYTortsDefense Attorney Does Not Have Right to Ex Parte Interviews With Plaintiff's Non-Party Treating Doctor Braganza v. [read post]
6 May 2007, 2:27 pm
See, Sherman v. [read post]
4 May 2007, 7:47 am
The Indiana Supreme Court decision May 2nd in Ruth Mullins and Johnce Mullins, Jr. v. [read post]
3 May 2007, 2:43 pm
The federal government contends that it's illegal for doctors, state law notwithstanding, to give patients medication to help them die. [read post]
3 May 2007, 7:32 am
She has the right to choose her doctor. [read post]
3 May 2007, 1:11 am
Supreme Court's 2005 Granholm v. [read post]
2 May 2007, 1:07 am
DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKEvidence DEA Database Evidence More Probative Than Prejudicial To Doctor Charged With Illegally Prescribing Drug United States v. [read post]
27 Apr 2007, 1:25 pm
" After a hearing, the State Board revoked the doctor's license.While the doctor raised an array of technical objections by way of an Article 78 proceeding, the Appellate Division, Third Department, ultimately concluded that the penalty did not "shock one's sense of fairness" and left the revocation undisturbed.Frankly, it would have been shocking if the AD3 had concluded otherwise.For a copy… [read post]
27 Apr 2007, 8:04 am
It undermines a core principle of Roe v. [read post]
26 Apr 2007, 6:48 pm
Alaska Statutes § 09.17.010; State v. [read post]
26 Apr 2007, 12:43 pm
By Eric Goldman Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Apr 2007, 8:23 am
Leroy Carhart in Gonzales v. [read post]
26 Apr 2007, 6:20 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
24 Apr 2007, 10:17 am
Ruiz-Rosa v. [read post]
23 Apr 2007, 8:03 am
Morgan State University (06-306) and turned aside a petition for rehearing in the denied case of Ray v. [read post]
23 Apr 2007, 6:05 am
(Hill v. [read post]
22 Apr 2007, 4:39 am
Preemption is a big deal: The feds have tried to preempt state regulation of financial markets, as in Watters v. [read post]
19 Apr 2007, 8:29 am
Mike's posting earlier today quotes extensively from Posner's dissent from the en banc decision in Hope Clinic v. [read post]
19 Apr 2007, 7:50 am
But at the very least, Kennedy's argument suggests that the state could take the lesser step of requiring doctors to inform the woman about all the details of the D&E procedure she will have to undergo and about what will happen to the fetus.If that is correct, then Gonzalez v. [read post]
18 Apr 2007, 11:06 pm
Casey [, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)] and Roe v. [read post]
