Dan Troy and Rebecca Wood have contributed an article, “Federal Preemption at the Supreme Court,” to the most recent issue of the Cato Supreme Court Review.
In a nutshell, Troy and Wood note that there were generally “lopsided majorities” in favor of preemption in the Supreme Court’s decisions last Term. The authors then make three
We can’t help it. We’re suckers for a good preemption discussion – addicted as we are to the topic. That’s why at least one of us (Bexis), and possibly both, will be attending the 2008 (9th) Annual Legal Reform Summit, hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in DC on October 29.
The Summit’s less
We just got back – well, one of us, anyway – from the latest ALI Members’ Consultative Group (“MCG”) meeting concerning the Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation (which we’ll call “PLAL” for short). We’ve always had concerns about the direction of this project, which we haven’t hesitated to inflict on our readers.
This, that, and the other thing.
Potpourri.
Odds and sods.
Whatever. This post is about stuff that we learned about recently that relate to our prior posts. Other than that, they have nothing in common with each other.
Together, they add up to enough material for a decent post.
A couple of weeks ago, we linked to Part One of Anthony Sebok and Benjamin Zipursky’s Findlaw article about Wyeth v. Levine, the drug preemption case pending in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sebok and Zipursky have now published Part Two of that article.
Although we disagree with the conclusion that the authors reach, here’s a
On October 2, 2008, plaintiffs filed in the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari in Colacicco v. Apotex, No. 08-437. By a two to one majority, the Third Circuit held in Colacicco that federal law preempted plaintiffs’ failure-to-warn claims brought against the manufacturers of antidepressants.
Here’s a link to our original post about Colacicco.
ReachMD, Radio XM 157, interviewed one of your humble scribes, Herrmann, about the effect of drug preemption on physicians.
For those who are interested, here’s a link to the broadcast.
And for those who learned about the blog through ReachMD, welcome aboard! We’re glad you chose to visit.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court asked the Solicitor General to weigh in on whether the Court should grant certiorari in the Farm Raised Salmon Cases. (Here’s a link to Monday’s Order List at the Court. In the Supreme Court, the case is Albertson’s v. Kanter, No. 07-1327.)
Farm Raised Salmon raises the issue of preemption
This guest post was written by J.C. McElveen of Jones Day. J.C. gets all the credit for this post; your dynamic blogging duo had nothing to do with it:
On September 11, 2008, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, in the context of a lawsuit brought under the Price-Anderson
In June 2007, the West Virginia Supreme Court refused to adopt the learned intermediary doctrine.
We deplored State of West Virginia ex rel Johnson & Johnson Corp. v. Hon. Mark A. Karl when it came down, and we continue to deplore it today.
Although we didn’t like the result, Karl was good for us in