Search for: "Erie R. Co. v. New York" Results 61 - 80 of 94
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Mar 2010, 2:30 am
(Patent Docs) Atripla (Emtricitabine) - US: District Court S D New York: Patent infringement suit filed following a Paragraph IV Certification: Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp. et al. v. [read post]
10 Feb 2010, 3:50 am
Issuing an unambiguous final decision indicating that all administrative appeals have been exhausted triggers the running of the statute of limitationsMatter of Janet Arnold, et al v Erie County Med. [read post]
9 Feb 2010, 6:33 am
Gelstein,  the New York Court of Appeals noted: Under the [New York] Times [Co. v Sullivan (376 US 254)] malice standard, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the “statements [were] made with [a] high degree of awareness of their probable falsity” (Garrison v Louisiana, 379 US 64, 74). [read post]
2 Feb 2010, 11:25 am by Editor
Had he lived, he might have co-authored the absurd NASCAR substance abuse policy. [read post]
2 Feb 2010, 11:25 am by Editor
Had he lived, he might have co-authored the absurd NASCAR substance abuse policy. [read post]
31 Jan 2010, 7:16 pm by admin
Prior to 1998, the system had been overwhelmed causing overflows of raw sewage into waterways and streets of New Orleans. [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 12:33 pm
Co. (1st Dept., decided 12/15/2009) Since February 2008, when the New York Court of Appeals issued its groundbreaking, 5-2 decisions in Bi-Economy Mkt., Inc. v. [read post]
4 Dec 2009, 3:10 am by Daniel E. Cummins
Dauphin Co., 2008 CV 17687; and Sellers v. [read post]
28 Nov 2009, 12:18 pm by Daniel E. Cummins
Co., 2009 WL 3815756, No. 2009-SU-2878-01 (York Co., Nov. 9, 2009, Chronister, J.) [read post]
5 Nov 2009, 2:23 am
The plaintiff amicus argued that the controlling doctrine is not Erie, but the decision in Hanna v. [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 2:14 am
Plaintiffs say that defendants should not be allowed to do this because, despite what the statute says, Congress couldn't have meant to authorize pre-service removal before a plaintiff even has an opportunity to effect service.This has been happening a lot in drug/device cases originally filed in New Jersey because: (1) a lot of big drug/device companies have their headquarters in New Jersey, and (2) a lot of plaintiffs' lawyers view New Jersey state courts and… [read post]