Judge (and former Yale Law School Dean) Guido Calabresi gave the keynote speech last month at NYU Law School’s symposium on “Tort Law in the Shadow of Agency Preemption.”
We don’t want to steal his thunder. We assume (but don’t know) that Calabresi’s talk may be published in next year’s symposium issue of the Annual
Entry on Third Circuit’s docket, dated 3/18:
CLERK’S LETTER to counsel written at the direction of the Court. You are undoubtedly aware that the United States Supreme Court has remanded the above matter to this Court for further consideration in light of its opinion in Wyeth v. Levine, 555U.S.___(2009). The Court requests counsel to file
Sometimes, we try to be encyclopedic in our blog posts. Sometimes, we try to be funny. (Yeah, yeah: “Try” is the operative word.) Today, we’re just being descriptive.
In Delaney v. Stryker Orthopedics, No. 08-03210 (DMC), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16865 (D.N.J. Mar. 5, 2009), Delaney underwent hip replacement surgery with a hip prosthesis manufactured
A little more than a year ago we posted about Longs v. Wyeth, 536 F. Supp.2d 843 (N.D. Ohio 2008), a fen-phen decision that, among other things, held preempted a claim that the drug in question was so dangerous that there was no adequate warning that could make it “safe” enough for state tort
A linchpin of the preemption analysis in Wyeth v. Levine, 2009 WL 529172 (U.S. March 4, 2009), was the Court’s discussion of the “changes being effected” regulation, id. at *7-8, which in turn depended on the existence of either “newly acquired information” or “new analyses of previously submitted data.” Id. at *7. Factually, there
We can’t say much, because Herrmann’s on the road and Bexis is involved in the litigation, but a trial court in New Jersey just denied certification of an individual consumer economic loss class action, both nationwide and limited to New Jersey. The bases of the decision:
There is no predominance. “The causal nexus between the
This is not really new news.
Herrmann (and co-authors) published “The Class Action Fairness Act: An Ill-Conceived Approach to Class Settlements” a couple of years ago in the Tulane Law Review and “Making Class Actions Work: The Untapped Potential of the Internet” more recently in the University of Pittsburgh Law Review.
The new news is
One silver lining from the severe pruning that prescription drug preemption took in Wyeth v. Levine, is that there may now be less incentive to expand the common-law liability of pioneer manufacturers in generic drug cases – something we’ve discussed in posts that readers can find under the “product identification” “generic drug” and “Conte”
As you know, we watch the medical device preemption cases.
But here’s a Riegel wrinkle. (In fact, we like this case so much that we might call it
Blogging makes you psycho. (Frankly, we didn’t have that far to go even before we started blogging.)
Not only do you want to break stories on the web, you want to be among the first to comment in the print media, too.
The two of us thus teamed up to write a piece for today’s