We are not going to beat around the bush today. When we see a “prediction” of an “expansion” of state law by a federal court, we have only one question. What about Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938)? That should have been a front and center question for the court
Critics have been known to accuse us of being too hard on product liability plaintiffs and too forgiving of defendants who develop medical products. We all have our biases, especially after many collective decades of representing the latter group, but we do think the table is often tilted in favor of the former group. One
The heat waves of summer haven’t been gone long enough for those of us in the North East to be longing for 90° days anytime soon. But we have no problem reaching back to the dog days of summer for today’s decision. Which got us thinking, what are the dog days of summer? Days that
A couple of weeks ago, we walked around the Drug and Device Law Suburban Abode with a critical eye. The Abode was built the same year we were built, and we were struck by its similar cries for invasive cosmetic help. As a stopgap, we arranged to have the exterior painted, a finger in the
Plaintiffs often prefer to be in state court, and when we first started doing a lot of product liability litigation way back when, we were struck by how much time and effort plaintiffs spent trying to evade federal jurisdiction and litigating motions to remand to state court. We don’t wonder so much anymore. Jaded, we
For as long as we’ve been practicing law, litigation tourists plaintiffs, from far and wide, have flocked to bring suit in the downstate Illinois counties of Madison and St. Clair, despite their claims having nothing to do with the state of Illinois. Yesterday, the Illinois Supreme Court – in Essure litigation – recognized that this
Today is Friday, December 20, 2019, the last day on which many of our readers will be in the office before settling their brains for a long winter’s nap. We wish you all the very best, and our holiday gift to you today is a case about candy. Not just any candy. Today we bring
This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.
If you know this blog, you know we leave no stone unturned when it comes to preemption. As far as we know, Greager v. McNeil-PPC, Inc., 2019 WL 5549524 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2019) is a preemption issue of first impression. Plaintiff alleged she
Reading through Obermeier v. Northwestern Memorial Hosp., __ N.E.3d __, 2019 IL App. (1st) 170553 (Ill. App. Div. June 28, 2019), reminded us of scrolling through television channels in the middle of the day with time to kill. The opinion started off talking about the basic medical facts of the case and we were
No. It can’t be. PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011) took care of that. Just look at our generic preemption scorecard – the proof is there. The warnings on generic drugs must be the “same” as those on branded drugs. Generic drug manufacturers cannot unilaterally alter, amend, or change any warning and