This post is a follow-up of sorts to our “Stupid Expert Tricks” post. That post dealt with dodgy games that our opponents’ experts play. This post is about adding injury to insult, that is, when the plaintiffs try to make us pay for the privilege of dealing with those tricks.
Now both our
This appeared on September 3, 2019, on the Missouri Supreme Court’s list of “Writs and Other Original Proceedings”:
SC98009 State ex rel. Monsanto Company, Relator, vs. The Honorable Michael K. Mullen, Respondent.
Petition for writ of prohibition sustained. Preliminary writ ordered to issue returnable to Court en banc within fifteen days.
(Emphasis
Bexis is updating the preemption chapter of his prescription medical product liability treatise, and with Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, 139 S. Ct. 1668 (U.S. 2019), being so new, he collected a bunch of law firm blogs/client updates about the case to see what potential issues other lawyers out there might
Judges should … judge. They should decide legal issues. But some judges think their primary role is to “manage” litigation. It turns out that such management often means strong-arming parties into settlement. Is that appropriate? We wondered about that. We wondered it aloud. We wondered it in the presence of one of our Summer associates,
We’ve blogged a number of times about how litigation funding arrangements involving personal injuries and mass torts collide with various ethical and statutory obligations owed by either the funders or the lawyers they fund. These all involve United States litigation. But when the New York Times reported on the questionable funding arrangements that have occurred
Bexis vividly remembers how he first learned of 21 U.S.C. §337(a). It was early 1995, and he had just joined the Danek Medical legal team in the early going of the Orthopedic Bone Screw MDL. The plaintiffs’ complaints went on and on about “negligence per se” and purported violations of the FDCA. Bexis figured that
Today’s guest post by Reed Smith associate Tim Carwinski addresses the broader possible ramifications of a recent Supreme Court decision, Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, 139 S. Ct. 710 (2019). This is one of those many cases that we saw something about, but it didn’t seem that pertinent to what we do, so we let
Forget the Reptile Theory; today’s topic is even more atavistic than that – what defendants can rely on when xenophobia and racism invade the courtroom. That kind of sub-reptilian gambit unfortunately still exists, and can play out in a number of ways.
Sometimes an appeal to prejudice is made via raw, frontal assault – often
Today is Ash Wednesday and begins the 40 days (not counting Sundays) of Lent. Lent comes from the Anglo Saxon word for Spring. For Christians, the 40 day period represents the time Jesus sojourned in the wilderness, resisting the temptation of Satan, and preparing his final ministry. Lent is a time for repentance, fasting, and
Over 11 years ago the blog published a post called “Anatomy of a Mass Tort,” which endeavored to explain the life cycle of this type of litigation. We’ve decided to revisit and update that post, given the changes that have taken place over the intervening years.
And change it has. Our original post