Having already issued our posts on the best and worst cases of 2017, we will resist the temptation to comment on the year as a whole, particularly on the powder keg that is politics. We will note, however, two non-legal phenomena that we do not like. First, our collective attention span has gotten shorter, with
Ending the year on a high note is one thing that the blog tries to do – with the top ten drug/device product liability decisions of the year. Occasionally, a court will do something that ruins the party, with an eleventh-hour awful decision (the infamous Bausch v. Stryker Corp., 630 F.3d 546 (7th Cir.
We’ve been aware of the other side attempting to construct a First Amendment counter-argument to our preemption defense for some time. It first cropped up in a 2015 360 article by a P-side thought leader (no, not necessarily an oxymoron) soon echoed by a comment to one of our posts on the Amarin First Amendment
This week saw the birthdays of two folks who were sort of prominent in our youth. First, Uri Geller, the Israeli ‘psychic’, turned 71. He showed up on our tv constantly in the 1970s and 80s, bending spoons with his mind. Was this guy on the level? Can you read our mind and discern our
Sometimes it happens. For eleven years, we have published our annual “worst of” the year post on the Thursday before Christmas and our annual “best of” the year post on the Thursday before New Year’s.
Guess what? In a development that we weren’t entirely surprised to see happen, the California Supreme Court recognized not only
We posted our 2017 “Worst 10 decisions” list a day too soon, because the California Supreme Court issued its anticipated decision in TH v. Novartis, No. S233898, slip op. (Cal. Dec. 22, 2017) today, and if it is not the worst drug and device decision of 2017, it is awfully close. With an emphasis
The second most successful college basketball coach of all time (in terms of NCAA Division 1 national championships) has said “All of life is peaks and valleys. Don’t let the peaks get too high and the valleys too low.” We’re remembering that today because, frankly, dealing with all the lows at once can get depressing.
We reported two weeks ago on an order favoring implied preemption in an innovator prescription drug case coming out of the Eliquis MDL in New York. One week after that order, the Ninth Circuit filed an unpublished opinion reversing an order from the In re Incretin-Based Therapies MDL in the Southern District of California that
This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.
When we say Nebraska, what comes to mind? Cornhusker football? Warren Buffet, the Wizard of Omaha? Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show? Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom? An amazingly haunting album by Bruce Springsteen? As the Jersey Girl blogger on this site, it should be
What follows is a collaborative effort between Bexis and Reed Smith‘s Kevin Hara, who helped research and write this post. It’s not really a guest post, but Kevin had such a large hand in it that his contribution deserves to be separately acknowledged.
**********
As attorneys, we are fond of rules: they give