Search for: "Deas v. Deas"
Results 41 - 60
of 783
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Oct 2021, 6:21 am
Byrnes v. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 8:38 pm
[Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 9:07 pm
Stevenson v. [read post]
3 Apr 2021, 7:36 am
Aguiar v. [read post]
23 May 2024, 6:14 am
Ctr. v. [read post]
17 Aug 2012, 4:34 am
United States v. [read post]
25 May 2011, 9:22 am
In Heckler v. [read post]
10 Aug 2012, 1:39 pm
United States v. [read post]
6 Aug 2012, 6:21 pm
The case is Americans for Safe Access v. [read post]
6 Aug 2012, 6:21 pm
The case is Americans for Safe Access v. [read post]
10 Oct 2012, 8:18 am
Circuit, often called the second most important court in the land, will heard oral arguments in Americans for Safe Access v. the DEA. [read post]
21 Nov 2024, 9:33 pm
All DEA-registered practitioners may continue to prescribe via audio-visual telemedicine encounters schedule II-V controlled substances, and schedule III-narcotic controlled substances that are FDA-approved for opioid use disorder management and treatment. [read post]
31 Mar 2008, 7:31 am
United States v. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 4:49 am
United States v. [read post]
18 Sep 2012, 7:59 am
From: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-09-12/news/os-sanford-cvs-caremark-revoke-drugs-20120912_1_revokes-prescription-drug-abuse-oxycodone-and-other-prescription Holiday CVS, L.L.C., v. [read post]
5 Jul 2023, 8:31 am
Some of the most significant updates include the following: Registration Requirements Generally, every practitioner who dispenses, which includes by definition administering and prescribing, controlled substances in schedules II through V, must be registered with DEA. [read post]
8 Oct 2023, 6:46 pm
Instead, DEA states: This extension authorizes all DEA-registered practitioners to prescribe schedule II–V controlled medications via telemedicine through December 31, 2024, whether or not the patient and practitioner established a telemedicine relationship on or before November 11, 2023. [read post]
18 Nov 2007, 8:47 am
United States v. [read post]