Search for: "United States v. Bartlett"
Results 81 - 100
of 220
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Sep 2015, 5:24 am
Bartlett, 133 S. [read post]
27 Aug 2015, 5:01 am
Public Service Commission, is a “a substantial interest to be achieved by restrictions on commercial speech,” 447 U.S. 557, 564 (1980), we’re certain that mining the government’s briefs in prior First Amendment litigation such as United States v. [read post]
13 Aug 2015, 10:56 am
Forest Laboratories, a case from the Lexapro MDL, the court agreed with defendant’s argument that per Bartlett, the United States Supreme Court has held that design defect claims involving pharmaceutical products are preempted. [read post]
11 Aug 2015, 11:16 am
United States, 447 F. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 11:51 am
The United States Supreme Court’s decision to hear Tyson Foods v. [read post]
5 Jun 2015, 1:29 pm
Notwithstanding, that claim fails for the simple reason that the United States Supreme Court has held that design defect claims involving pharmaceutical products are preempted. [read post]
4 Jun 2015, 5:56 am
On May 26, 2015, the Solicitor General’s office responded to the United States Supreme Court’s Oct. 14, 2014 invitation for the government’s views on the certioraripetition filed in Athena Cosmetics, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 4:30 am
Pa. 2012); Steele v. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 11:45 am
Bartlett, 133 S. [read post]
28 Jan 2015, 6:00 am
In Morrison, the Supreme Court limited investors’ ability to bring private 10b-5 securities fraud actions to cases where the securities at issue were purchased on a United States stock exchange or were otherwise purchased in the U.S. [read post]
7 Jan 2015, 6:54 am
Co. v. [read post]
31 Dec 2014, 5:00 am
There’s good language in Bartlett (2013 #+1) [read post]
24 Dec 2014, 5:00 am
In this case the United States Supreme Court held that a state attorney general action (really brought by contingent fee counsel proceeding in an AG’s name), ostensibly on behalf of all the citizens of a state, did not qualify as a “mass action” under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) so as to allow removal to federal court. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
By our count, federal judges have trampled over state sovereignty with respect to the heeding presumption in no fewer than eleven states – Alaska, Colorado (despite contrary state-court authority), Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, New York (despite contrary state-court authority), South Dakota, and Wyoming.Finally, because various states have taken quite different approaches to whether a heeding presumption exists at all and… [read post]
13 Oct 2014, 4:05 am
Calo, Constructing the Secular: Law and Religion Jurisprudence in Europe and the United States (September 2014).Adam Lamparello, 'God Hates Fags' Is Not the Same as 'Fuck the Draft': Introducing the Non-Sexual Obscenity Doctrine, (October 8, 2014).Nadia B. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 11:55 am
June. 13, 2013), holding essentially that, since those meanies on the United States Supreme Court aren’t letting plaintiffs sue generic manufacturers, we’ll change Alabama common law and let them sue someone else. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 11:04 am
In support of their argument, defendants cite the recent United States Supreme Court case of Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 12:57 pm
” Best v. [read post]
17 May 2014, 6:00 am
On April 14, 2014, in National Association of Manufacturers v. [read post]
15 Apr 2014, 9:29 am
The United States files a brief that technically supports neither party, but in practical effect seems to provide considerable benefit to POM. [read post]
