Search for: "Lake v. United States" Results 1041 - 1060 of 1,404
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Jun 2011, 12:43 pm by Bexis
  Fraud-on-the-FDA claims are preempted by the United States Supreme Court decision Buckman Co. v. [read post]
3 Jun 2011, 5:30 am by Kevin
For more on this topic, including the story of the one published legal opinion involving moon-rock ownership, see "United States v. [read post]
31 May 2011, 6:10 am by Nabiha Syed
United States, in which the Court interpreted the scope of the federal witness tampering statute can be applied, while James Bickford summarized the Court’s opinion in United States v. [read post]
18 May 2011, 7:14 am
Setting the stage for an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the full 9th Circuit has denied a request for rehearing in the NEDC v. [read post]
17 May 2011, 4:43 pm by Colin O'Keefe
King, where the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling that will have major implications on searches and seizures. [read post]
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]
25 Apr 2011, 9:00 am
The court disagreed, relying on the fact that the United States Supreme Court in Ransom vs. [read post]
14 Apr 2011, 12:50 pm by Conor McEvily
DaugaardDocket: 10-1058Issue(s): Whether the Yankton Sioux Reservation includes all lands within its original boundaries other than those the Tribe ceded to the United States for sale to non-Indians in the Act of 1894.Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (8th Circuit)Conditional Cross-Petition for a Writ of Certiorari [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 11:28 am by Chuck Becker
 (Note: While I certainly hope that EPA is correct in saying that it has no impact, the United States Supreme Court might disagree with that assessment as it did in last term’s case of Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 3:53 am
Scope of arbitrating an alleged violation of a collective bargaining agreementRichfield Springs CSD v Allen, 270 AD2d 734Changes in health insurance benefits may be initiated by a third party that actually provides the benefit. [read post]