Search for: "FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp"
Results 41 - 55
of 55
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jul 2014, 9:05 am
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted); Wolf Run Mining Co. v. [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 8:22 am
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. [read post]
21 Nov 2013, 12:13 pm
First of all, the position was unprecedented:[N]o court has ever found that a product is “intended for use” or “intended to affect” within the meaning of the FDCA absent manufacturer claims as to that product’s use.Id. at 417 (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. [read post]
8 Aug 2013, 5:00 am
Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc., 1999 WL 980159, at *1 (E.D. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 2:30 pm
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 938 A.2d 417 (Pa. 2007) (3-2 decision with two concurrences in the result), was not even cited in Maya. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 1:09 am
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 134 (2000), have interpreted the NDA counterpart provisions at FDC Act § 355(e). [read post]
3 Jun 2011, 8:32 am
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000).Finally, specifically with respect to devices, we think it's apt to call upon a 1997 amendment to the FDCA:Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit or interfere with the authority of a health care practitioner to prescribe or administer any legally marketed device to a patient for any condition or disease within a legitimate health care practitioner-patient relationship. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 3:18 pm
Brown v. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 6:02 am
AT & T Corp., ___ A.3d ___, 2011 WL 165843, at *20 (D.C. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 4:30 am
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 539 U.S. 120 (2000) (holding that Congress had not vested the FDA with the power to regulate cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products). [read post]
2 Feb 2010, 3:29 pm
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 4:30 am
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000), wherein the Supreme Court held that tobacco products were not subject to FDA regulation as a drug or device.The Smoking Everywhere court rejected the FDA's arguments that the term "tobacco product" should be narrowly defined and that e-cigarettes were drug-device combinations. [read post]
10 Oct 2009, 9:30 am
V. [read post]
4 Jun 2009, 11:31 pm
Brown &;amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp.(2000), Justice Scalia, although well-known for his textualism and opposition to reliance on legislative history, signed on to a Supreme Court majority opinion the featured extensive analysis of legislative history. [read post]
18 Oct 2007, 7:27 am
Brown &;amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 132 (2000) ("If Congress has done so, the inquiry is at an end; the court must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. [read post]
