Search for: "CVS CAREMARK" Results 21 - 40 of 299
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Jan 2020, 12:10 pm by Dennis Crouch
CVS Caremark Corp., 669 F.3d 1005, 1017 (9th Cir. 2012). [read post]
This knowledge of CVS Caremark’s business would allow him to negotiate more favorable deals for PillPack with CVS Caremark’s competitors, CVS argued. [read post]
9 Jan 2019, 7:40 am by Beth Graham
CVS Caremark Corp., 748 F.3d 249, 262-63 (5th Cir. 2014); Petrofac, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 3:15 am by Edgar (aka MrConsumer)
These pills purchased from CVS/Caremark mail order came from India? [read post]
21 May 2018, 3:18 am by Edgar (aka MrConsumer)
Sometime shortly after April 15th, when I had not yet reordered it from them, CVS/Caremark took it upon themselves to notify my doctor. [read post]
17 May 2018, 9:33 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
CVS Caremark Corp., 875 F.3d 746, 753 (3d Cir. 2017)Of the discovery issue, CA3 wroteThe Unionwas not allowed to depose witnesses, but it asked for all materials collected during theProvost’s investigation, including correspondence, emails, and Blackboard recordsThe interpretation of this was that if emails were not collected, they were not within the scope.By this logic, the recipient of a discovery request could choose not to collect certain emails during the investigation,… [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 3:01 pm
(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2016) I will be teaching a course on Corporate Social Responsibility. [read post]
9 Dec 2016, 8:42 am by Hunton & Williams LLP
On December 2, 2016, a Texas federal court ruled that the insurer for the predecessor of CVS Caremark Corp., Revco D.S. [read post]
15 Sep 2016, 12:14 pm by Ad Law Defense
CVS Caremark Corp., No. [read post]
14 Sep 2016, 11:00 am by Phyllis H. Marcus and Matthew W. Modell
Consumer Litigation CVS to Face Suit Related to Alleged Useless or Even Dangerous Vitamin E Pills A putative class action against CVS Caremark Corp. over the company’s alleged promotion of its Vitamin E supplements’ “heart health” benefits has been reinstated by the First Circuit. [read post]