The now well-known requirement from the TwIqbal cases that a complaint contains factual allegations that establish that relief is plausible derives from Rule 8(a)(2) requirement that each pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” One recurring point of contention in drug and device litigation
A Device That Uses Magnetic Levitation Sounds Pretty Innovative To Us
This post is from the non-RS side of the Blog.
Consider the following scenario. A fifty-two-year-old woman has end-stage left ventricular heart failure despite medical care and the latest medications. Her prospects for a heart transplant or the implantation of a left-ventricular assist device to prolong her life are limited, including by financial considerations. She
Guest Post — Federal Officer Removal: U.S. Supreme Court Affirms that a Statute’s “Ordinary Meaning” Can Be Exceptionally Broad
Today’s guest post from Justin Kadoura, a Holland & Knight product liability and toxic tort litigator, concerns a Supreme Court decision on an issue that might seem unrelated to the sort of case we cover at the DDL Blog. However, federal officer removal does come up in our cases and we have covered it
Supreme Court Rejects Preemption: Does It Matter For Drug And Device Cases?
No, not that case. The appeal of the FIFRA preemption rulings in glyphosate litigation is still pending. This decision is Hencely v. Fluor Corp., No. 24-924, 2026 U.S. Lexis 1868 (U.S. Apr. 22, 2026), which involves the preemption of negligence claims against a military contractor in connection with a terrorist attack on the Bagram
When Admonishing Does No Deterring It May Be Time To Retool
We typed the following question into a simple AI prompt: “What is the difference between admonish and deter?” The response started with “The primary difference between admonish and deter lies in their intent and timing: admonishing is form of active, often verbal correction or warning regarding past or present behavior, while deterring is an act
More Than A Feeling Required In Psych Drug Case
This post comes from the non-RS side of the Blog.
Prescription medications for psychiatric conditions fill an important role in modern healthcare. They tend to have labels with lots of information about the risks of various emotional, psychological, and neuroreceptor-mediated conditions, including worsening of the underlying conditions being treated, interactions with other medications or substances
Another State AG Action On Electronic Cigarettes Impliedly Preempted
Five months ago, we posted on a decision from an Ohio intermediate appellate court finding that a state AG action against sellers of vaping products was impliedly preempted under Buckman. Part of what got our attention about the decision in State ex rel. Yost v. Cent. Tobacco & Stuff, Inc., No. 24 CAE
Clinical Trial Sponsor Not Liable For Sponsoring Clinical Trial
Yes, we know our title is rather circular. In fairness, most of the allegations we have seen in cases attempting to impose liability on the sponsor of a clinical trial are too. We have been following proposed clinical trial liability in its various proposed forms for quite some time, including winning a jury trial
Guest Post: What the New Reference Manual for Scientific Evidence Teaches Us About AI in the Courtroom
Today’s guest post is from Nick Dellefave, an up and coming Holland & Knight litigator. The Blog has rolled out a few posts on the latest edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. Nick adds to this opus with a dive into the intersection between scientific evidence, the role of trial judges