Search for: "People v. Taylor (1980)"
Results 41 - 53
of 53
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Feb 2011, 1:49 pm
Briefly, courts have adopted the learned intermediary rule because:Warnings go to physicians because they are the only people who know both a particular patient’s medical history as well as the risk/benefit profile of the drug/device being prescribed.Limiting warning duties to physicians makes the common law consistent with warning duties imposed by the FDA.Routing prescription drug/device information through the doctor preserves the physician/patient relationship from outside… [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 6:42 pm
In People v Colville (2010 NY Slip Op 07185 [2nd Dept. [read post]
7 Oct 2010, 12:27 pm
Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972, 977 (2d Cir. 1980) ("[S]ummary judgment has traditionally been frowned upon in copyright litigation. [read post]
25 Jun 2010, 10:47 am
Cohn, Venable LLP: The guides date to 1980; in effect 27 years before the first review even began. [read post]
26 Apr 2010, 5:15 am
Judge Wood addressed the “sophisticated intermediary” doctrine in Taylor v. [read post]
19 Feb 2010, 10:43 pm
Hammer (No. 3), [1980] 3 All E. [read post]
3 Jan 2010, 4:55 am
During the Company's two most recent fiscal years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 and through March 23, 2009, neither the Company nor anyone on its behalf consulted Grant Thornton LLP regarding either (i) the application of accounting principles to a specified transaction, either completed or proposed, or the type of audit opinion that might be rendered on the Company's financial statements, and no written report or oral advice was provided to the Company that Grant Thornton LLP concluded… [read post]
6 Jun 2009, 8:08 pm
Blaylock (7 October 1980), Vancouver Reg. [read post]
16 May 2009, 9:41 am
Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 642 (1980). [read post]
1 May 2009, 11:06 am
For example, in Ting v. [read post]
22 Mar 2008, 2:34 pm
Clemons v. [read post]
16 Aug 2007, 9:09 am
Taylor, 917 F.2d at 1403; United States v. [read post]
14 Jan 2007, 9:47 am
Roe v. [read post]
