Search for: "Pearson v. Shalala*"
Results 1 - 18
of 18
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Jan 2013, 1:05 pm
Pom’s fallback argument was that its ads were only potentially misleading under the terrible Pearson v. [read post]
25 May 2011, 12:44 am
As explained by Petitioners, it has been firmly established by Pearson v. [read post]
16 Jan 2019, 1:50 pm
Circuit has held the question open as well, Pearson v. [read post]
17 Jan 2007, 5:36 am
This litigation was only the opening salvo.In Pearson v. [read post]
27 Feb 2014, 12:10 pm
Citing Pearson v. [read post]
26 Feb 2016, 9:47 am
In Pearson v. [read post]
10 Oct 2009, 5:09 am
It appears that the Botox suit is claiming free speech protections that are similar to those that are currently provided for dietary supplements under the questionable decision of Pearson and Shaw v. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 2:12 pm
Citing the principles established in Pearson I (Pearson v. [read post]
1 Sep 2011, 12:57 pm
Not as closely on point, but from an appellate court is, Pearson v. [read post]
13 Dec 2019, 5:06 pm
In Pearson v. [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 12:55 pm
’”Alliance for Natural Health US, 2010 WL 2110071 at *10 (quoting Pearson v. [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 5:06 am
Circuit explained in Pearson v. [read post]
26 Feb 2007, 8:20 am
This comes from Pearson v. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 3:29 pm
Instead, they came about as a consequence of FDA’s decisions following a 1999 federal appeals court ruling (Pearson v. [read post]
15 Oct 2008, 9:03 pm
(quoting Corsello v. [read post]
8 Oct 2009, 4:24 am
Western States Medical Center, 535 U.S. 357 (2002) (pharmacy compounding); Pearson v. [read post]
3 Apr 2007, 5:25 am
" There were no barriers in US TM law, because of decisions like 1968's Chanel v. [read post]
16 Oct 2009, 3:18 pm
Dietary supplement claims must be substantiated by scientific evidence, the FDA has guidance for industry about this. [read post]
