We’ll admit it: this post is written out of pure jealousy. Last week, Tauber authored a post on vaccines and set a record for DDL blogpost “hits.” It was a good, useful post, but we doubt all of the tens of thousands of hits came from legal scholars. The post made it to Reddit, and

On Monday, Bexis, laboring on Labor Day, blogged about a kooky Ohio decision ordering the off-label administration of an animal drug, ivermectin, to a seriously ill COVID-19 patient over the objections of that patient’s treating physicians and of the hospital in which the patient was being treated. The decision was kooky both medically and legally.

We’ll get to the recent Second Circuit decision, Ignacuinos v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc., — F.4th —-, 2021 WL 3438355 (2d Cir. 2021), in due course, but first some background.

One of our top ten decisions in 2018 was Gustavsen v. Alcon Labs., Inc., 903 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2018), an important implied-preemption

Back in the early days of the blog, when it was a Bexis/Herrmann operation, we wrote about the California Supreme Court decision that opened the floodgates to all that food litigation that now plagues that state − Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 175 P.3d 1170 (Cal. 2008).  We explained how the court In Farm Raised

We have become accustomed to doing things remotely these days.  Depositions, court appearances, mediations, conferences, celebrations and family gatherings of all kinds.  The variety of activities that we now do by videoconference pales only by comparison to the speed with which we adapted to this new normal.  We will refrain from opining on whether we

The Ninth Circuit recently answered a preemption question that we had seen arise intermittently, mostly in food litigation, over the past couple of years.  Because the relevant preemption clause closely resembles the language of the Medical Device Amendments, we thought it was worth a look.

In Webb v. Trader Joe’s Co., ___ F.3d ___,