Search for: "State v. Chang "
Results 41 - 60
of 50,247
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 May 2024, 5:10 am
In Pliva, Inc. v Mensing (564 U.S. 604 [2011]), the Supreme Court found that these plaintiffs’ state-law claims against generic manufacturers were preempted by federal law under the Supremacy Clause to the extent that state-law failure-to-warn statutes required generic drugs to provide more stringent, safer warning labels. [read post]
10 May 2024, 2:30 am
This approach is said to reduce the risk of the expert giving their views with hindsight but in practice it is not always possible because for instance the cited prior art might change quite late in the case. [read post]
9 May 2024, 11:30 am
Wade, Griswold v. [read post]
9 May 2024, 10:55 am
The Supreme Court is currently considering the meaning of “accrues” in the context of suing the United States government in Corner Post, Inc. v. [read post]
9 May 2024, 7:29 am
Federal Trade Commission, 3:24-cv-986, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, filed April 23, 2024; Chamber of Commerce for the United States of America et al. v. [read post]
8 May 2024, 9:01 pm
Expansion of secondary sanctions targeting Iran and other changes Although U.S. sanctions against Iran are already quite broad, the Act expands so-called “secondary sanctions” further. [read post]
8 May 2024, 1:28 pm
United States (Treaty Rights; "Bad Men" Provision) Reges v. [read post]
8 May 2024, 7:25 am
In Raytheon Co. v. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am
IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York2024 NY Slip Op 02369Decided on May 02, 2024Appellate Division, First DepartmentMoulton, J.Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Decided and Entered: May 02, 2024 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial DepartmentSallie Manzanet-DanielsPeter H. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am
IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York2024 NY Slip Op 02369Decided on May 02, 2024Appellate Division, First DepartmentMoulton, J.Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Decided and Entered: May 02, 2024 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial DepartmentSallie Manzanet-DanielsPeter H. [read post]
8 May 2024, 5:17 am
The jurisprudence on names (in particular Grunkin and Paul) shows that the fact that a Member State does not have its own procedure for such changes (according to de la Tour, this concerns only 2 Member States for gender changes) does not constitute an obstacle to the recognition of a change lawfully made in another Member State (nos. 73-74). [read post]
7 May 2024, 2:47 pm
Almost 30 years ago, SCOTUS issued its opinion in United States v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 9:32 am
UIPL 16-20, Change 4, issued January 8, 2021. [read post]
7 May 2024, 9:31 am
What if Thomas now wants to change status to O-1B classification based on the acclaim he has received as a violinist? [read post]
7 May 2024, 8:47 am
Starbucks (10(j) Relief Standard): On April 23, 2024, oral argument before the United States Supreme Court took place in Starbucks Corp. v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 7:51 am
Garland, 593 U.S. 155, 171–72 (2021); United States v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 7:42 am
Bell v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 6:43 am
In this case, the New York Court of Appeals chips away a little further on eyewitness testimony and holds that the criminal conviction needs to be vacated.The case is People v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 6:30 am
Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 5:22 am
Lawsuits can be a powerful way to affect change. [read post]
