We just love to see our victories put to good use by other lawyers in later cases.
So we got a big kick out of Pustejovsky v. Wyeth, No. 4:07-CV-103-Y, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101513 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 4, 2009).
We didn’t get a big kick out of the facts, since we had nothing to
We’ve discussed the New Mexico case of Rimbert v. Eli Lilly before twice: once concerning the learned intermediary rule, and a second time when the plaintiff’s only expert got Daubertized.
Well, the third time’s the charm. Rimbert has finally been dismissed. See the order here. Summary judgment was not really surprising after the plaintiff’s
That’s us.
At least, that’s what blog reader Geoff Klingsporn over at Davis, Graham just told us about our new Conte/generic drug non-liability scorecard. We’re not offended, because the reason for our falling short is the best, a new decision – from West Virginia this time – throwing out yet another attempt by a
The law reviews just keep on coming.
And one in a thousand articles keeps begging to be read.
We liked Nicholas Pace and William Rubenstein’s RAND Working Paper titled, “How Transparent are Class Action Outcomes?: Empirical Research on the Availability of Class Action Claims Data” (on SSRN here). Their thesis is not exactly a
Regular blog readers know how we feel about Conte v. Wyeth, Inc., 85 Cal. Rptr.3d 299 (Cal. App. 2008), review denied (Cal. Jan. 21, 2009) – the case that held an innovator drug manufacturer potentially liable for “misrepresentations” even though it did not manufacture the drug that allegedly harmed the plaintiff. We criticized virtually
We confess, we saw it first on 360 – but we had to put our two cents in. The plaintiffs’ inability to plead fraud with particularity has just gutted a high profile Actimmune suit. (360 calls it an “MDL” but our commenters say it’s not, and since the opinion itself doesn’t mention anything about an
We’re delighted when our blog gives people food for thought.
So we were tickled pink when Daniel A. Richards, a student at Fordham University School of Law, told us that one of our blog posts had given him a topic for his law review note. And Daniel was kind enough to send us a link
No, we’re not talking about the McClellan Kerr Project that turned Little Rock and Tulsa, of all places, into seaports. We’re talking consumer protection lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies (aren’t we always).
We’ve mentioned a couple of times before that a lot of consumer protection laws contain “safe harbor” provisions that bar suits over conduct that
Jeff Pilkington and Geoff Klingsporn of Davis Graham & Stubbs contributed the following guest post noting the passage of one year since the Conte decision came down. Jeff and Geoff get all the credit for what follows; all we do is thank them for their work:
On November 7, 2008, a “grotesque chimera of product
The Eighth Circuit’s recent overturning (technically, affirming the district court’s blow out) of a large punitive damages award in a hormone replacement therapy case got us thinking about punitive damages again. See In re Prempro Products Liability Litigation, ___ F.3d ___, 2009 WL 3518245 (8th Cir. Nov. 2, 2009).
Thinking, but not necessarily talking