Search for: "In Re Anthony F." Results 1 - 20 of 390
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Apr 2024, 3:33 pm by admin
Prelude to Litigation Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) was a widely used direct α-adrenergic agonist used as a medication to control cold symptoms and to suppress appetite for weight loss.[1] In 1972, an over-the-counter (OTC) Advisory Review Panel considered the safety and efficacy of PPA-containing nasal decongestant medications, leading, in 1976, to a recommendation that the agency label these medications as “generally recognized as safe and effective. [read post]
3 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
Whether you’re here in person or participating virtually from around the country, or even overseas, I thank you for joining us. [read post]
22 Jan 2024, 1:16 pm by Dennis Crouch
(Amicus Curiae): Scott Anthony McKeown – Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. [read post]
1 Dec 2023, 7:23 am by Amy Howe
O’Connor ran for the seat in her own right in 1970; she won and was re-elected again in 1972. [read post]
19 Nov 2023, 2:31 pm by admin
“There is no expedient to which man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking. [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 3:38 pm
Efforts like the Ethics Guide for Trustworthy AI assume the regulatory role of Miss Millie.[8]   Jan Broekman takes us to the edge of that gap between the human, and their technologies of re-production and memory, their elaborate systems of subjectivity that has moved humanity to the construction of virtual imaginaries of itself. [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 6:21 am
It provides a basis for re-thinking the fundamentals of the way in which one understands the interface between humanity and its increasingly autonomous technology, and between the idea of humanity as innate in itself against the reality that the human may now be more intensely manifested in its interfacing with increasingly self-generative machine intelligence and the hardware within which it resides. [read post]
5 Oct 2023, 5:44 am by Eugene Volokh
Indiana (1973) the Court held that because Hess's statement "[w]e'll take the f—ing street later" or "[w]e'll take the f–ing street again" at an antiwar demonstration was not directed to any person, it could not be incitement and was protected speech. [read post]