We used to author occasional “There’ll Always Be Posner” posts, highlighting the latest ruminations of that lively, capacious intellect. But it is doubtful whether we will ever have occasion to pen another such post, since Judge Posner stepped down from the Seventh Circuit. But Judge Danny Boggs still sits on the Sixth Circuit, and he
Say what?
That’s what we thought when we ran across Restatement §920 recently – it was by accident; we were researching something else.
The 900 section of the Second Restatement of Torts is about damages, and §920 has to do with mitigation of damages:
When the defendant’s tortious conduct has caused harm to the plaintiff
We’ve blogged before about the substantive (preemption) and procedural (removal) aspects of the Eliquis MDL – both of which the defense seemed to be winning. However, we cautioned in our 2018 “Best Of” post that these favorable decisions “still face[d] an appeal.”
No longer. The appeal has been decided, and the plaintiff’s losing streak continues.
Skin in the game. Horse in the race. Dog in the hunt. Whatever “it” is – we don’t have “it” in today’s case. Ansley v. Banner Health Care is a suit brought by plaintiffs who had received damages awards for injuries that required treatment at various hospitals seeking to enjoin those hospitals from enforcing liens
We know that most of our clients, manufacturers of prescription medical products (for purposes of this post), if they have insurance at all, have coverage that is subject to large self-insured retentions (“SIRs”). While the Blog doesn’t usually follow insurance matters, the decision discussed in this guest post is very good news for insureds
Today, Reed Smith is hosting a client roundtable in London, “Identifying and Mitigating Risk in a Changing Global Economy,” for life sciences clients. In light of that, we thought it would be a good idea to have a blogpost that’s relevant to what’s hot in the UK. Well, there’s nothing hotter on that side of
Last week, in Timbs v. Indiana, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2019 WL 691578 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2019), the Court unanimously held that the Excessive Fines Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment applies to the states:
Under the Eighth Amendment, “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
We’ve written several times (here, for example) about the Biomaterials Access Assurance Act (BAAA), 21 U.S.C. section 1604 et seq., and how it issues a get-out-of-litigation-free card to suppliers of raw materials and components. Today’s case, Connell v. Lima Corp. et al., 2019 WL 403855 (D. Idaho Jan. 30, 2019), supplies another
What’s done is done. No turning back. You can’t go home. Unreviewable play. No breakfast balls. All simple phrases, all meaning the same thing—finality.
The law certainly knows something about finality. That was made clear once again in Juday v. Merck & Co. (In re Zostavax (Zoster Vaccine Live) Prods. Liab. Litig.), 2018 U.S.