Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Class I with severe crowding and labially erupted canines Class II molar relationship Edward Angle , who is considered the father of modern orthodontics, was the first to classify malocclusion. He based his classifications on the relative position of the maxillary first molar . [ 33 ]
North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission , 574 U.S. 494 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case on the scope of immunity from US antitrust law . The Supreme Court held that a state occupational licensing board that was primarily composed of persons active in the market it regulates has immunity from ...
Occlusion is a fundamental concept in dentistry yet it is commonly overlooked as it's perceived as being not important or too difficult to teach and understand. Clinicians should have a sound understanding of the principles regarding occlusal harmony in order to be able to recognise and treat common problems associated with occlusal disharmony.
Class I: The molar relationship of the occlusion is normal or as described for the maxillary first molar, with malocclusion confined to anterior teeth [4] Class II : The retrusion of the lower jaw with distal occlusion of the lower teeth (or in other words, the maxillary first molar occludes anterior to the buccal groove of the mandibular first ...
In turn, it was the California Practice Act that served as the foundation of the California Code of Civil Procedure. New York never enacted Field's proposed civil or political codes, and belatedly enacted his proposed penal and criminal procedure codes only after California, but they were the basis of the codes enacted by California in 1872. [11]
California Civil Code § 3369, enacted in 1872, was California's early unfair competition statute. It "addressed only the availability of civil remedies for business violations in cases of penalty, forfeiture, and criminal violation." [3] A 1933 amendment expanded the law to prohibit "any person [from] performing an act of unfair competition."
The De Havilland Law, [1] formally De Haviland v. Warner Bros. Pictures, is a published judicial opinion interpreting California Labor Code Section 2855, [2] a California law which prevents a court from enforcing specific performance of an exclusive personal services contract (i.e., contracts creating a non-delegable duty on the part of an individual to another party, and no other, to render ...
The California Code of Regulations (CCR, Cal. Code Regs. ) is the codification of the general and permanent rules and regulations (sometimes called administrative law ) announced in the California Regulatory Notice Register by California state agencies under authority from primary legislation in the California Codes .