Since Herrmann argued this case, and Bexis contributed an amicus brief, we’re going to be quite guarded in what we write here. But please remember the existence of Ackermann v. Wyeth, 526 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2008), the next time you’re briefing whether a so-called “heeding presumption” applies in cases involving the learned intermediary
Every once in a while, we run into interesting stuff on the web.
Today, we thought we’d share a few things with you.
First, Professor William Rubinstein of Harvard Law School hosted the Class Action Prof Blog until he seemingly gave up the ghost last year. But, in his last post, he linked to this
Probably the most unexpected aspect of blogging has been fielding all these calls from reporters. But it does make us wonder sometimes about the quality of the news we hear anywhere. Honestly, would you trust reporters with sources like us?
And one of the most common questions we get asked – well, not exactly, but
Professor Henry Noyes, of Chapman University School of Law, has posted on SSRN an article analyzing the implications of new Federal Rule of Evidence 502.
Here’s a link to “Federal Rule of Evidence 502: Stirring the State Law of Privilege and Professional Responsibility With a Federal Stick.”
According to Professor Noyes:
“Rule 502 quietly takes
Gunvalson v. PTC Therapeutics is the case in which a federal trial court ordered a drug company to provide an experimental drug to a patient outside of the context of a clinical trial. We previously posted about Gunvalson here and here. (And Pathophilia commented on the case here and, before that, here.)
We
In this week’s FindLaw column, Anthony Sebok and Benjamin Zipursky discuss the facts of Wyeth v. Levine and urge the Supreme Court to “decide Levine quite narrowly (however it decides) and we are cautiously optimistic that it will do so.”
Among other things, Sebok and Zipursky say that:
“The problem with Levine is that the
At this blog, we root for the drug industry.
Film at 11.
So the California Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Johnson v. GlaxoSmithKline, No. B199453, slip op. (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 19, 2008) (link here), left us a little depressed.
Several different groups of plaintiffs have sued GlaxoSmithKline pleading that GSK deceptively
This guest post was written by David B. Alden of Jones Day, who may know more about the attorney-client privilege than any other living human being. Because it’s Dave’s work, Beck and Herrmann are off the hook — they claim no credit for what follows.
Both Houses of Congress have passed Senate Bill No.
We’ve been thinking about MDL practice the last couple of weeks, and we’ve decided to do a wrap-up post on that subject. Here’s everything you need to know about the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
We have a link to the MDL Panel’s website over in the right-hand column of this blog. For your convenience,