Search for: "Ross v. Harding" Results 1 - 20 of 245
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]
16 Jan 2024, 5:45 am by Mark Graber
  On the assumption that the framers thought long and hard about insurrections, Ross Douthat, Steven Calabresi and others, have apparently concluded that if they think long and hard about insurrections, their thoughts will mirror those of Reconstruction Republicans. [read post]
21 Dec 2023, 6:00 am by Taylor Gulatsi
Our achievements would not have been possible without the hard work of our employees, the collaboration of our partners, and the support of our patrons. [read post]
2 Oct 2023, 9:41 am by Aaron Moss
Ross Intelligence The issues at play in Thomson Reuters v. [read post]
18 Sep 2023, 4:34 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
” Noncompliance with the statute renders an attempted conversion “ineffective” (Miller v Ross, 43 AD3d 730 [1st Dept 2007]). [read post]
29 Aug 2023, 6:47 am by Mark Ashton
Ross, not to be confused with the epic child support battle Humphreys v. [read post]
16 Jul 2023, 6:44 pm by Franklin C. McRoberts
” Some standing-based dismissals can be exceedingly hard fought, protracted, and expensive. [read post]
14 Jul 2023, 12:30 pm by John Ross
And by the way, we agree with Will Baude that it's hard to see how people ever have standing to sue for nominal damages. [read post]
20 Jun 2023, 7:09 pm by Jacob Fishman
Part V concludes with a report card on how the regime is doing on its thirtieth anniversary. [read post]
1 Jun 2023, 11:43 am by John Elwood
” The firm argues that Steel Co. did not purport to state an absolute rule about statutory jurisdiction, but that claim is hard to square with the court’s statement in Ruhrgas AG v. [read post]