Who will President Obama appoint to key positions at the Food and Drug Administration?
Eye on FDA describes the characteristics the new Commish should possess, but doesn’t name names. That’s useful — but not much fun.
The most comprehensive handicapping that we’ve seen so far is over at the Wall Street Journal Health Blog,
Brian Currey, of O’Melveny & Myers, provided our primary guest post on Monday about the oral argument in the Supreme Court in Wyeth v. Levine, the drug preemption case.
Brian has now reflected on his reaction to the argument, and he appended a long, and thoughtful, comment at the end of his original post.
Here’s
The November issue of California Lawyer has hit the streets. An article titled “Drug Reaction” discusses Wyeth v. Levine, quotes one of your dynamic blogging duo, and mentions our little blog.
(Although Herrmann was flattered to be featured in a “pull-out quote,” he believes that he actually said, “The justices do a funny dance when
We’re collecting here some of the press reports in the national media about yesterday’s oral argument in Wyeth v. Levine, the drug preemption case:
Also, here’s law.com’s coverage.
And Slate.
Bon appetit!
And don’t forget to vote.
A legal writing consultant recently called one of your dynamic blogging duo and interviewed him about his book, The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law.
For anyone who’s interested in proof that we think about stuff other than drug and device law, here’s a link to that interview.
The transcript of this morning’s oral argument in Wyeth v. Levine is now available here at the Supreme Court’s website.
The FDA Law Blog reports on the oral argument in Wyeth v. Levine here.
There’s about three paragraphs about the argument in a long story on Wyeth v. Levine in the Washington Post.
And the Wall Street Journal Law Blog here.
Update: And the Mass Tort Defense blog here.
Here’s the guest post reporting on Wyeth v. Levine that we actually solicited. Brian Currey, of O’Melveny & Myers, attended the oral argument this morning.
(If, after reading his report, you hunger to hear more from him (and get a free breakfast), you can stop by the National Conference on the Impact of U.S.
We just received this reaction to today’s argument in Wyeth v. Levine from someone else who attended. (We are not attributing this guest post to the reader who sent it, but these are not our words; we weren’t there this morning.)
Quick reaction: I do not think we’ll see an 8-1 decision like in Riegel.
We just got this info handed to us. It’s second hand and not for attribution, but it’s the first thing approaching a blow-by-blow we’ve seen on the Wyeth v. Levine argument. Thanks to our anonymous source. You know who you are.
Our suppositions were correct in one respect, the arguing attorneys were Seth Waxman for