Search for: "GAD v. State"
Results 21 - 35
of 35
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Dec 2007, 2:13 pm
United States v. [read post]
14 Nov 2007, 1:00 pm
While Judge Erdmann didn't tip his hand, Chief Judge Effron emphasized that accepting Army GAD's and the Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Government Division's arguments that CAAF had no jurisdiction would require overruling United States v. [read post]
22 Jan 2021, 3:50 am
Mainiero, 31 A.D.3d 306, 306 [1st Dept. 2006] (reversing dismissal under CPLR § 321 l(a)(l) “[d]espite the detailed on-the-record settlement of plaintiffs matrimonial action,” on the grounds that “the former husband’s pension and other assets were overlooked in arriving at the stipulation”); Gad v. [read post]
17 Aug 2007, 1:28 am
And the wording of the granted issue in United States v. [read post]
27 Dec 2007, 1:19 am
State of N.Y. [read post]
17 Feb 2007, 3:40 am
State v. [read post]
19 Jun 2009, 2:43 pm
See 58 M.J. at 397; see also United States v. [read post]
14 Sep 2015, 7:32 am
Declining the employee’s request to overrule Jones, the appeals court looked to its subsequent decision in Gad v. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 1:35 pm
Thus, as Jacob LJ explained in Actavis v Merck at [75], such a claim "is not aimed at and does not touch the doctor - it is directed at the manufacturer. [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 12:22 am
This Kat posted a short report of the Court of Appeal, England and Wales, judgment delivered by Lord Justice Floyd in Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF & Others [2015] EWCA Civ 556, and has in the meantime been cogitating and ruminating (hard as that is for a non-ruminant carnivore) on what it all means.To remind readers on where we were before this appeal decision, Warner-Lambert marketed the drug pregabalin for three authorised indications -- epilepsy,… [read post]
30 Sep 2010, 9:44 pm
” United States v. [read post]
2 Feb 2017, 1:22 pm
” United States v. [read post]
12 Jan 2010, 5:00 am
" Stalley v. [read post]
24 Sep 2021, 5:37 am
Thank you to the reader who recently alerted me to this important opinion: Campasano v. [read post]
