Search for: "People v. West (1980)"
Results 161 - 180
of 209
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Sep 2011, 12:04 pm
, the first non-Communist party-controlled trade union in the Warsaw Pact countries) in 1980. [read post]
6 Sep 2011, 4:00 am
In Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 9:13 am
Eilionóir Flynn’s Book From Rhetoric to Action (0)July 12, 2011 -- H v. [read post]
13 Aug 2011, 12:00 am
PEOPLE v. [read post]
14 Jul 2011, 10:08 pm
In Wheaton v. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:46 pm
Feb. 9, 2011) (applied to pharmacists); West v. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 10:16 am
COMPLAINT received and sworn to in the West Roxbury Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department on June 25, 2009. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 6:02 am
Aren’t there a bunch of plaintiffs out there suing Eli Lilly because its anti-schizophrenia drug, Zyprexa supposedly causes diabetes – at least in obese people who would probably contract the disease anyway? [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 5:13 am
The court distinguished Kearns on the basis that the defendant in that case, the Bar Council, was not a “public authority”; but it showed a clear preference for the (conflicting) approach in Wood v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [2005] EMLR 20. [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 2:36 pm
(citing People v. [read post]
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]
5 Feb 2011, 10:08 am
This court in People's Union for Democratic Rights & Others v. [read post]
16 Jan 2011, 8:10 am
Ramadas Shenoy v. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 5:22 am
Woodson (1980), Rush v. [read post]
7 Dec 2010, 3:22 pm
There is an obvious and material difference between being represented in proceedings which could result in a person’s expulsion from, or detention in the Commonwealth, being represented, and a person being represented for the purpose of the preparation of a report pursuant to s 62G of the Act, the weight given to which would be determined after the parties referred to in such report had the opportunity to cross-examine its author during the course of proceedings in the court in which… [read post]
18 Sep 2010, 10:31 am
People came from long distances to bathe in its waters. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 8:43 am
But his administration’s decision on this case, Connecticut v. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 9:24 am
Click Here DECISIONS Arkema, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 8:05 am
(citing People v. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 9:08 am
We have very bright people on our side. [read post]
