Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011), [1] is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Vermont statute that restricted the sale, disclosure, and use of records that revealed the prescribing practices of individual doctors violated the First Amendment.
Massachusetts v. Purdue is a lawsuit filed on August 14, 2018, suing the Stamford, Connecticut-based company Purdue Pharma LP, which created and manufactures OxyContin, "one of the most widely used and prescribed opioid drugs on the market", and Purdue's owners, the Sacklers [1] accusing them of "widespread fraud and deception in the marketing of opioids, and contributing to the opioid crisis ...
Case history; Prior: 674 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2012); rehearing en banc denied, 688 F.3d 211 (5th Cir. 2012); cert. granted, 568 U.S. 1140 (2013).: Holding; A plaintiff establishes a violation of the retaliation provision of Title VII if the plaintiff proves that the defendant would not have made the adverse employment action but for the defendant's retaliatory motive.
That same month, Janssen distributed a “Primer on Dementia” to its ElderCare sales force. The marketing team also created a section for a training manual called “Handling the Most Common Objections Voiced By Prescribers,” which told the sales reps to remind doctors that “Risperdal has an excellent combination of efficacy and safety.”
Landmark court decisions, in present-day common law legal systems, establish precedents that determine a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially affect the interpretation of existing law. "Leading case" is commonly used in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions instead of "landmark case", as used ...
Canterbury v. Spence (464 F.2d. 772, 782 D.C. Cir. 1972) was a landmark federal case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that significantly reshaped malpractice law in the United States. [1] [2] It established the idea of "informed consent" to medical procedures.
AB v CD and others is a separate case involving the Tavistock & Portman NHS Foundation Trust, on the related matter of whether parents can give legal consent to their child receiving puberty blockers. In a judgment issued on 26 March 2021, the High Court ruled that parents are able to give such consent "save where the parents are seeking to ...
In common law countries with an adversarial system of justice, the names of the opposing parties are separated in the case title by the abbreviation v (usually written as v in Commonwealth countries and usually as v. in the U.S. [2]) of the Latin word versus, which means against. When case titles are read out loud, the v can be pronounced ...