Search for: "Federal v. Levine" Results 1061 - 1080 of 1,213
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Jul 2007, 12:51 am
But the impact of past decisions may pale in comparison to the Court's resolution, to be made next year, of Stoneridge Investment Partners v. [read post]
18 May 2009, 2:14 pm
Levine, 129 S.Ct. 1187, 173 L.Ed. 2nd 51 (2009), that federal law did not preempt a state law claim brought by a musician who lost her arm to gangrene as a result of a defectively labeled nausea medication. [read post]
2 Sep 2008, 11:09 am
These intellectual property themed links are once again from the month of August: An IP Checklist for Bloggers (v.1.1) Colette Vogele's blog - Colette Vogele has come up with a one page IP checklist for bloggers. [read post]
31 Dec 2022, 10:34 am by Christopher J. Walker
Federalist Society Luncheon Debate: Resolved: The Major Questions Doctrine Has No Place in Statutory Interpretation Thursday, January 6, noon-1PM In West Virginia v. [read post]
8 Jan 2017, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
Katz of Mintz Levin have looked at the 2017 Federal Trade Commission and Google complaint. [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 1:39 pm by Matthew Ackerman
  As a result of different offsets, the state and federal rules can achieve two different results. [read post]
9 Jun 2020, 12:26 pm by Kevin LaCroix
[v] Two examples of these strategic practices emerged following the Delaware Court of Chancery’s decision in the Trulia case[vi] and the Supreme Court’s decision in the Cyan case. [read post]
29 Dec 2010, 12:54 pm by Bexis
  That’s a given in federal court, but it’s gratifying to have state high courts adopt the same principle. [read post]
15 Feb 2021, 7:56 am by Eric Goldman
Privacy law will only get worse until we get a federal preemptive law. [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 1:21 pm by THE KONG FIRM PLLC
 In February of this year, the Federal District Court in Maryland in TEKsystems, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Sep 2007, 10:42 am
  The Supreme Court created the exemption in 1922 in Federal Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. [read post]