According to a recent decision, one Pennsylvania court thinks that the answer is “yes.”
Simon v. First Savings Bank of Indiana, 2023 WL 5985282 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 14, 2023), isn’t a prescription medical product case, and doesn’t even involve torts, so we didn’t notice it until we recently had occasion to Shepardize (an anachronism
Let us be clear at the outset. We were shocked and appalled by the 5-4 result in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 143 S. Ct. 2028 (2023), holding that phony “consent” to general jurisdiction does not offend constitutional Due Process when a state statutorily declares something less than “at home” status − corporate
Not too long ago we discussed post-remand Pennsylvania Supreme Court filings in the Mallory personal jurisdiction matter. After reviewing both sides’ filings, we observed: “[U]nless the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Mallory were to act contrary to the positions of both sides, the DCC issue will be decided promptly, on this appeal.”
Well, that’s exactly what
We closed our post on the terrible Supreme Court decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 143 S. Ct. 2028 (2023), with this “stay tuned” message:
Finally, as all the Mallory opinions make clear, jurisdictional litigation in Mallory itself is not over. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Pennsylvania statute has not
Today we report on Farson v. Coopersurgical, Inc., 2023 WL 5002818 (N.D. Ohio 2023), a product-liability decision that dismissed all claims against all defendants based on lack of personal jurisdiction, preemption, and Twombly.
Claiming that she was injured when an implantable medical device migrated in her body, the plaintiff brought suit in Ohio
“To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a Heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.”
– William Blake, Auguries of Innocence
We’ve long been enamored with the idea that sources of insight reside all around us. Before we did drug and
Today’s guest post is from friend-of-the-Blog Richard Dean of Tucker Ellis. For years he has been advocating greater defense use of the dormant Commerce Clause, and given the discussion of that constitutional defense in the pivotal Alito concurrence in the recent Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., ___ S. Ct. ___, 2023 WL 41877494 (U.S. June 27, 2023), personal jurisdiction decision, he is back again. He’s too nice to say “I told you so,” but he’s earned the right. As always our guest bloggers deserve 100% of the credit, and any blame, for what they write.
Continue Reading Guest Post − Let the Dormant Commerce Clause Challenge to Consent Statutes Go Forth
If Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., slip op. (June 27, 2023), were a prescription medical product case, it would probably qualify as the worst judicial decision since the Blog was created – due to its potential scope. Since it’s not, Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), retains that title. But because it does not arise from what we do, Mallory is in certain ways worse. Not only does it give free reign to all litigation tourism in Pennsylvania, but it opens the door to any other state potentially to do the same thing.
Continue Reading Litigation Tourism Lives – Mallory Reversed
We step outside the drug and device world today to report on Davis v. Cranfield Aerospace Solutions, Limited, — F4th –, 2023 WL 4141670 (9th Cir. Jun. 23, 2023), because if you substitute FDA for FAA in this case it is precedent for precluding personal jurisdiction over FDA consultants and others who assist
Lawyers and wannabe lawyers like to use Latin words and phrases without always understanding their original meaning. English, a Germanic language according to the family tree, is peppered with words that are derived from Latin. Being the conglomeration that it is, English includes some words—egregious comes to mind—that now mean the opposite of their Latin