Today’s Order List is up at the Supreme Court. Here’s a link.
The Court denied certiorari in Albertson’s v . Kanter, the “farm-raised salmon” case about which we previously posted here and here.
And the Court took no action in Colacicco v. Apotex (the SSRI preemption case about which we previously posted
Herrmann alone is veering way off-topic here, for a post about using blogs to develop new legal business. Bexis prefers to stick to drug and device law, so he played no role in drafting this post.
A surprising number of folks have asked us whether blogging is a useful business development tool for lawyers. Here
Not too long ago – but eons ago by blogging standards – blog reader Alan Modlinger over at Lowenstein Sandler favored us with a copy of an opinion, District 1199P Health & Welfare Plan v. Janssen LLP, 2008 WL 5413105 (D.N.J. Dec. 3, 2008), in which the court blew out one of the other
We’re late on the draw with this news.
On November 19, 2008, plaintiffs’ lawyer Mark Lanier spoke to a torts class at Harvard Law School. Folks who have never seen Lanier in action might be interested in watching some or all of the videotape of his talk. (Here’s a link to Harvard’s announcement of
Roughly a year ago, we published a post about the trial court decision in Independence County v. Pfizer. There, the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed claims brought by several Arkansas counties against companies that manufactured over-the-counter cold and cough medicines containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine. The counties sought to hold the drug companies liable because the
A panel of five judges — four federal, one state — spoke at the ACI drug and device conference in New York last month. The panel lasted for nearly two hours, but these were, to our eye, the highlights of that discussion from the judges whom we see most frequently in mass torts:
From Judge
The first really, really major post-Riegel preemption battle in the PMA device product litigation has been the Sprint Fidelis implantable cardiac defibrillator lead MDL, in which Medtronic moved to dismiss (that means on the pleadings – without discovery) against all claims on the strength of the express preemption clause as interpreted by Riegel.
As we’ve said before, we don’t do Canadian law here. We posted once on that subject, about a year ago, and we were quick to confess our ignorance.
But we were startled by what we heard about Canadian class action law at the ACI conference in New York City last month. One speaker said