By the standards of the blogosphere, this news is prehistoric. It dates not from last week or (perish the thought!) last month, but all the way back to February, when we were young. Nonetheless, the Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision in Walker v. Sunrise Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc., 249 S.W.3d 301 (Tenn. 2008) (link from the
This, that, and the other thing.
Potpourri.
Odds and sods.
Whatever. This post is about stuff that we learned about recently that relate to our prior posts. Other than that, they have nothing in common with each other.
Together, they add up to enough material for a decent post.
Yo! What’s goin’ on over in Joisey?
It wasn’t too long ago that New Jersey was one of the last places you’d want to be in if you were a drug or device manufacturer – litigating product liability claims, that is. To some extent that was ironic, because quite a few of our drug (not
Here’s my thesis: Bexis keeps winning all these cases just so Herrmann is saddled with the responsibility of writing ’em up on the blog. The SOB is a malingerer, pure and simple.
Today’s news is Sinclair v. Merck & Co, No. A-117-06, slip op. (N.J. June 4, 2008). We linked to it moments ago. And
On Thursday, we published a link to the New Jersey appellate court’s decision in McDarby and Cona v. Merck, Nos. A-0076-07T1, A-0077-07T1, slip op. (N.J. App.Div. May 29, 2008). We also explained that Bexis couldn’t comment on this one, because his firm is involved in the litigation.
So Bexis is out celebrating, and Herrmann gets
This goes into the “breaking news” category. The New Jersey Appellate Division has rendered a split decision in the Cona/McDarby Vioxx appeal. A copy of the opinion is here. Bexis is involved in the case and thus conflicted out from saying anything substantive. Herrmann hasn’t read it yet. In a nutshell, compensatory
We’ve now had a chance to read the Eighth Circuit’s short (ten-page) decision in In re St. Jude Medical, Inc., Silzone Heart Valve Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 06-3860, slip. op. (8th Cir. Apr. 9. 2008) (link) (now reported at, 522 F.3d 836). Sometimes good things come in small packages.
St. Jude recalled all
We just noticed this piece in Bloomberg News (via Pharmalot) about a hearing before Judge Weinstein on Thursday, April 10, in the consolidated Zyprexa cases.
Presumably keenly aware of the Second Circuit’s recent reversal of his decision to certify a consumer fraud class in the tobacco litigation (about which we posted here), Judge Weinstein
We’ve posted before, mostly in the context of our critiques of the ALI’s Aggregate Litigation Project, about the inherent problems with permitting large class actions involving the purchase of consumer products. We’ve pointed out that, in the products field at least, not a single certified litigation (as opposed to settlement) class action has survived appellate
Without the question mark, that’s Alaska’s state motto.
With the question mark, it’s our title for a post analyzing the on-going trial in State of Alaska v. Eli Lilly and Company.
The State of Alaska is seeking civil penalties from Lilly under the Unfair Trade Practice Consumer Protection Act of at least $1000 for