Search for: "State v. Hatch & Smith"
Results 41 - 60
of 67
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 May 2012, 5:00 am
Smith & Nephew, Inc., 482 F.3d 1187, 1194 (9th Cir. 2007); Phelps v. [read post]
3 Feb 2012, 5:59 am
Smith in Supp. of Opp’n. to Mot. to Compel Arbitration at ¶ 5. [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 6:10 am
Novo Nordisk A/S, regarding “use codes” and section viii carve-outs under the Hatch-Waxman Act; the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo v. [read post]
3 Jan 2012, 10:20 am
Ironworkers Local Union 68 v. [read post]
23 Dec 2011, 6:30 am
Rogers (Ohio State Univ.). [read post]
15 Sep 2011, 4:06 am
Ford Motor Co.), or rollover-prone all-terrain vehicles (like Smith v. [read post]
26 Aug 2011, 3:12 pm
Unigene Labs and Upsher-Smith v. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 12:42 pm
Detroit was the scene for a landmark eminent-domain case, Poletown v. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 8:58 am
Disclosure v. [read post]
15 Mar 2011, 12:46 pm
Corp. v. [read post]
26 Jan 2011, 5:38 pm
Stern v. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 8:22 am
Smith, who successfully argued Lawrence v. [read post]
16 Nov 2010, 5:16 pm
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to file an amicus brief in the consolidated appeals of Smith v. [read post]
6 Aug 2010, 11:46 am
United States v. [read post]
6 May 2010, 9:43 am
Teva filed a motion to dismiss arguing, among other theories, that her state law claims are preempted under the FDCA and the Hatch-Waxman Act. [read post]
29 Jan 2010, 7:54 am
The blogosphere reported yesterday that Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, has condemned the ruling as the Court’s most partisan since 2000’s Bush v. [read post]
31 Oct 2009, 4:06 pm
In a strongly worded order issued last week, a district judge overturned a 2008 state ruling that granted the authority permission to tap groundwater from three valleys in central Lincoln County. [read post]
FTC and California AG Join in Challenging Reverse Payment Settlements in the Pharmaceutical Industry
6 Mar 2009, 7:03 am
Trade Comm'n et al. v. [read post]
23 Feb 2009, 7:08 am
Smith v. [read post]
22 Jan 2009, 2:06 am
That testimony killed the plaintiff's standard product liability case, because under California (and almost all other states') law, a plaintiff cannot establish causation in an inadequate warning case where the prescribing physician did not rely upon the allegedly defective warning. [read post]
