Search for: "Lash's Products Co. v. United States" Results 1 - 10 of 10
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Feb 2012, 10:31 am by Schachtman
United States Envt’l Protection Agency, 4 F.Supp.2d 435 (M.D.N.C. 1998), vacated by, 313 F.3d 852 (4th Cir. 2002) Tocolytics – Medical Malpractice Hurd v. [read post]
29 Jan 2010, 1:30 pm by WIMS
The Administration is committed to promoting nuclear power in the United States and developing a safe, long-term solution for the management of used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 12:46 am by Anubha Sinha
This was a rather contradictory stand taken by him, as he was also a co-sponsor to the United States Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984 which encouraged generic drugs. [read post]
17 Nov 2018, 12:10 pm by Schachtman
Indeed, their brief in other places states their opinion that significance testing is not necessary at all: “Testing for significance, however, is often mistaken for a sine qua non of scientific inference. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 7:33 am by Schachtman
Lash (Sept. 11, 2006), filed in In re Welding Fume Products Liability Litigation, Case No.: 1:03-cv-17000, MDL No. 1535.  [read post]