Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
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 ...
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.
The Department of Justice said Friday that it sued pharmacy giant Walgreens over allegedly dispensing millions of unlawful prescriptions.. The DOJ said that Walgreens from August 2012 until the ...
Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902, 2004 SCC 34 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on patent rights for biotechnology, between a Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser, and the agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto.
Search the web. Legal Main; Terms of Service Summary; Terms of Service; Legal Information Privacy Policy. Privacy Policy Highlights
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 ...
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 ...