The Supreme Court has apparently been holding the cert petition in the SSRI antidepressant-suicide case of Colacicco v. Apotex until the Court decided Wyeth v. Levine.
The Supreme Court’s docket now shows that the cert petition in Colacicco will be decided at this coming Friday’s conference. Industry would naturally like to see cert denied in
First, a minor correction. We lost by 6-3, not 6-2 (when you’re typing fast you’re all thumbs). We lost Kennedy, Thomas, and Breyer. We needed to win at least two of them.
The court relied on two facts established by the trial: (1) that a stronger warning would have made a factual difference (eliminating consideration
Wyeth v. Levine was decided this morning and the Court rejected preemption by a 6-2 vote, Justice Stevens writing for the majority. The basics. (1) there is no preemption by impossibility because the FDA’s changes being effected (“CBE” ) regulation permits certain preapproval labeling changes that add or strengthen a warning to improve drug safety.
About a month ago we posted on a New Jersey intermediate appellate decision, Hoffman v. Hampshire Labs, 963 A.2d 849 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2009(, that interpreted the “ascertainable loss” requirement of the state’s consumer fraud act (“CFA”) as requiring the purportedly aggrieved consumer to invoke a money-back guarantee before bringing suit. We viewed the
We’re fixated on the subject: When a plaintiff files a complaint in state court that names both residents and non-residents of the forum state as defendants, can the non-resident defendant remove before the plaintiff serves the in-state defendant?
(We know that’s cryptic shorthand, but regular readers of this blog have seen more expansive descriptions of
Our first ever overseas guest post comes all the way from Thailand, where Douglas Mancill of the Deacons law firm reports on new Thai laws on product liability and their possible impact on/creation of product liability claims involving drugs and medical devices.
Needless to say neither Bexis nor Herrmann had anything to do with the
Is that title a mouthful, or what?
On January 30, the Second Circuit decided Abdullahi v. Pfizer, No. 05-4863-cv(L), 05-6768-cv(CON), slip op. (2d Cir. Jan. 30, 2009) (link here). In a nutshell, plaintiffs pleaded that Pfizer, “working in partnership with the Nigerian government, failed to secure the informed consent” of children (or their