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.
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the right of lawyers to advertise their services. [1] In holding that lawyer advertising was commercial speech entitled to protection under the First Amendment (incorporated against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment), the Court upset the tradition against advertising ...
Franklin and his attorney, Thomas M. Greene, filed a lawsuit, Franklin v. Parke-Davis, under the False Claims Act in federal district court in Boston. In the first off-label promotion case ever litigated in a whistleblower suit under the False Claims Act, the settlement was announced after eight years of litigation in May 2004.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) filed a lawsuit Wednesday accusing a second doctor of violating a state law banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors. The lawsuit, filed in a ...
The former rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital is accused of potentially assaulting more than 100 patients, attorneys say. Doctor pressured patient into phony medical exams to ...
sovereign immunity does not apply to admiralty suit against county Jones v. Flowers: 547 U.S. 220 (2006) sufficiency of notice for tax sale Hartman v. Moore: 547 U.S. 250 (2006) A plaintiff in a retaliatory prosecution action against federal officials must plead and show the absence of probable cause for pressing the underlying criminal charges.
A U.S. judge on Thursday imposed sanctions on two New York lawyers who submitted a legal brief that included six fictitious case citations generated by an artificial intelligence chatbot, ChatGPT ...
To satisfy the third element, legal malpractice requires proof of what would have happened had the attorney not been negligent; that is, "but for" the attorney's negligence ("but for" causation). [3] If the same result would have occurred without negligence by the attorney, no cause of action will be permitted. "But for" or actual causation can ...