Search for: "SmithKline Beecham"
Results 161 - 180
of 436
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jul 2010, 11:34 pm
The New York Times reports that, as early as the fall of 1999, SmithKline Beecham, maker of a popular diabetes medicine called "Avandia", found out, through studies it conducted, that the drug posed significantly greater cardiac risks than other leading diabetes medicines. [read post]
28 Aug 2017, 2:59 pm
See SmithKline Beecham, 439F.3d at 1319 (“Our law is well established that argumentsnot raised in the opening brief are waived. [read post]
13 Feb 2014, 9:01 pm
In Part One of this series, we began to analyze the recent decision from the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. [read post]
27 Feb 2011, 12:25 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp. (9th Circuit, February 14, 2011) found Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives (PSR) fell within this exemption, though they did not, and could not legally, directly sell SmithKline's pharmaceuticals to the patients, but promoted them to prescribing physicians and dispensing pharmacies from whom they could only obtain non-binding commitment to make future orders. [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 2:31 pm
Smithkline Beecham Corp., 658 N.W.2d 127 (Mich. 2003)) or the Sixth Circuit (Garcia v. [read post]
6 Aug 2017, 3:37 pm
" n100n97 Canal Barge, slip op. at *1; Calzaturficio, 201 F.R.D. at 37; Smithkline Beecham Corp., slip op. at *9; Taylor, 166 F.R.D. at 361.n98 Canal Barge, slip op. at *1; Smithkline Beecham Corp., slip op. at *9; Taylor, 166 F.R.D. at 361.n99 Canal Barge, slip op. at *2.n100 Rainey, 26 F. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 7:08 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp. regarding the scope of this exemption has provided much needed clarity to pharmaceutical companies and employers with similar types of sales forces who have relied – and hope to continue to rely – on the exemption. [read post]
17 Apr 2014, 9:28 pm
The case of SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. [read post]
30 Jan 2014, 9:01 pm
In SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. [read post]
21 Jun 2012, 2:00 pm
Smithkline Beecham and the opinion is here. [read post]
11 Mar 2011, 8:09 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., that a proposed class of pharmaceutical sales representatives (“Sales Reps”) were exempt from overtime pay pursuant to the “outside sales exemption. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 12:54 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 9th Cir. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 7:50 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp. here. [read post]
25 Feb 2010, 6:34 am
Smithkline Beecham Corporation, the Seventh Circuit rejected this argument in a case brought by a twenty-three-year-old woman who committed suicide two days after she started taking Paxil, a popular SSRI. [read post]
13 Oct 2009, 2:24 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp. dba GlaxoSmithKline, 2007-001813, Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). [read post]
3 Jul 2012, 5:13 pm
SmithKline Beecham, the court’s 5-4 decision was in favor of classifying pharmaceutical reps as outside sales people. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 8:06 am
Smithkline Beecham. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 6:00 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., that held a proposed class of pharmaceutical sales representatives to be exempt from overtime pay pursuant to the “outside sales exemption. [read post]
21 Jun 2012, 8:51 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp. is the Supreme Court's resolution of the conflict. [read post]
1 Dec 2011, 10:34 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., where it held that GlaxoSmithKline's PSRs were properly classified as exempt. [read post]
