Not quite six months ago, the Supreme Court decided Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 128 S. Ct. 999 (2008), but then again, most or our readers know that. Since then, our prediction that the plaintiffs would try, through Congress, to strangle Riegel in its cradle have proven all too accurate. Ditto for our expectations
When we’re blogging, sometimes we feel like we’re doing legal research or trying to advance the law.
Other times, we feel like we’re just nudging our friends, so they don’t overlook something that might interest them.
This post is of the friendly sort:
Don’t overlook this article in this morning’s Wall Street Journal about the
It hurts even to type these words: “Nearly twenty years ago, we wrote . . . .”
Sadly, it’s true. In the December 11, 1989, issue of Legal Times (at page 31), one-half of your dynamic blogging duo deplored a holding then common in federal courts.
The governing statute requires that a notice of removal
The FDA law blog has a very interesting post today about Massachusetts’ enactment of a law governing prescription drug and medical device marketing. Not only is the Commonwealth regulating promotional activities, but its also decided to do its part to combat the obesity epidemic – by prohibiting the “free lunch.” Can’t have fat doctors, we
For any of you that don’t subscribe to the daily “Smart Brief” that the Food & Drug Law Institute puts out – and if you’re interested in drug and device law, you should (it’s free) – we’d just like to note the story indicating that the Senate “companion bill” to the anti-preemption legislation
We posted last week about the Lone Pine order entered in the Celebrex litigation, and we received a few responses to that post.
Then we saw the letter from six drug companies to FASB, about which we posted on Friday.
The combination of those two things got us to thinking.
And if we’ve bothered
We haven’t yet said a peep about the FAS 5 brouhaha.
And, Lord knows, we haven’t had to.
In a nutshell, the Financial Accounting Standards Board has proposed to amend FASB Statement No. 5 to require companies to make additional disclosures about pending “loss contingencies,” which means making more public statements about pending litigation.
For
The quote “insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result” has been attributed variously to Benjamin Franklin and Albert Einstein. That probably means neither of them said it. But whoever did, we think the principle applies to class action litigation involving mass torts.
We’ve kvetched before about plaintiffs’
We don’t usually do “around the web” posts, but we’re making an exception today to highlight three items.
First, we posted last week about Brownlee and Lenzer’s list of “pharma free” experts and drew quite a dust-up in your comments to that post. Yesterday, Brownlee and Lenzer published a guest post at Pharmalot explaining and
As readers of this blog know, we’ve been strangely fascinated by the spat over whether in-state defendants (whose presence in a lawsuit would ordinarily prevent removal) can remove actions to federal court before those defendants are served with the complaint.
For examples of our fascination, see here, here, here, and here.