Search for: "State v. Evergreen District Court" Results 101 - 120 of 140
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Nov 2014, 10:59 am by John Elwood
Two related rescheduled cases, The Evergreen Association, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 6:10 pm by Kelly
Patent and Trademark Office et. al, (Prior Art) US: District Court New Jersey: Drug label may provide evidence of intent to induce infringement even though required by the FDA: Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. [read post]
4 Nov 2019, 8:00 am by Robert Kreisman
The appeals panel in conclusion stated that most of its decisions were based, either explicitly or implicitly, on the strategic choices made by plaintiff’s counsel in the trial court. [read post]
30 Dec 2009, 6:27 pm by Law Lady
District Court for the District of Delaware.Health Care Fraud: OMNICARE, IVAX SETTLE KICKBACK CHARGES FOR $112 MILLION, United States v. [read post]
27 Feb 2018, 2:00 am by Robert Kreisman
Continuing, the court stated that under certain circumstances, the court may look beyond the underlying complaint. [read post]
6 Jul 2012, 5:16 am by Guest Blogger
So far, the courts have bought their arguments (the decision on the NYC law, Evergreen Assoc. [read post]
29 Oct 2018, 2:04 pm by Alexander Berengaut and Tarek Austin
Supreme Court has explained, “once a right and a violation have been shown, the scope of a district court’s equitable powers to remedy past wrongs is broad, for breadth and flexibility are inherent in equitable remedies. [read post]
22 Sep 2013, 5:48 am by Robert Kreisman
”  The United States district court granted the motion and this appeal to the court of appeals was taken. [read post]
17 Feb 2016, 12:34 pm by Elina Saxena
” Here's a seemingly evergreen headline: the United States is urging NATO to play a bigger role in the fight against the Islamic State. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 4:17 am by Max Kennerly, Esq.
Thankfully, common sense prevailed — at least on the breach of warranty claim — and on Friday the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied the motion to dismiss on the basis of pre-emption, holding: [T]he Limited Warranty does not implicate the FDA’s determination of either safety or effectiveness. [read post]