Not too long ago one of our bloggers (McConnell) critiqued a p-side law review article he had received from a lawyer on the other side with whom he was friendly. Bexis isn’t as friendly with opposing counsel – Paul Rheingold being a rare exception. But probably due to his activity in the American Law Institute
This is a defense blog. Are we biased? Yes, we are. We come by that bias honestly, via temperament, principle, and client loyalty. We are happy to report on defense wins. If we report at all on plaintiff wins, it will be grudgingly and typically accompanied by heaping helpings of regrets and criticisms.
Have we
We recently received a couple of links from old friends that we thought we’d pass along. Decades ago, Bexis and some of our other bloggers worked with Peter Grossi – then a senior partner at Arnold & Porter – defending fen-phen cases in Philadelphia and elsewhere. Peter is retired now, but he still teaches law
There have been some famous law review articles, such as R. Coase, “The Problem of Social Cost,” J. of Law and Economics (1960), and S. Warren & L. Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy,” Harvard L. Rev. (1890). Those articles made waves when they came out, and they were cited endlessly. But when was the last
Long before the Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022), Bexis was concerned that FDCA preemption would be dragged into the country’s culture wars by the abortion issue. He hoped the Supreme Court would adhere to long-established precedent and thus keep FDCA preemption out of politics and in product liability litigation where it belonged. Dobbs extinguished that hope (and many others), so Bexis decided that he might as well embrace the inevitable.
He proposed writing his own law review article on this subject – about which he knows as much as anyone – to the Food & Drug Law Institute. FDLI accepted the proposal, and now, over a year later, the article is now published: Beck, Danziger, Johansen & Hayes, “Federal Preemption & the Post-Dobbs Reproductive Freedom Frontier,” 78(2) Food & Drug L.J. 109 (2023). The article is available to the public at the journal’s website, here. Bexis hardly did this alone, being ably assisted by three (then) Reed Smith colleagues, Philip W. Danziger, Sarah B. Johansen, and Andrew R. Hayes.Continue Reading Bexis Publishes Article Applying FDCA Preemption to Medication Abortions
Every once in a while in this space we summarize law review articles. In the course of doing so, we typically pat ourselves on the back by announcing that we read such articles so that you don’t have to. That is not true with the article we are discussing today, Goldberg, Gramling, & O’Rourke, “A
There is a lot of scholarship and other material out there on issues having to do with federal multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) practice. See, e.g., footnote three, in the article below. But state MDL equivalents? Not so much. The Blog’s co-founder wrote a book about this a while ago, see Herrmann, et al.,
This blog has discussed Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, 139 S. Ct. 1668 (2019), and its progeny on multiple occasions. We provided a quick take when Albrecht was issued; discussed the decision’s possible ramifications here and here; expressed consternation at certain parts of the decision; reported here and here on how
Back in 1998, Bexis published the first major law review article about off-label use of drugs and medical devices and tort liability, James Beck & Elizabeth Azari, “FDA, Off-Label Use, & Informed Consent: Debunking Myths & Misconceptions,” 53 Food & Drug L.J. 71 (1998). This article came to be cited twice by the United States
We recently came across the law review article, E. Lindenfeld, “Clear Evidence Clarified,” 75 Food & Drug L.J. 346 (2020). Since it cited and critiqued a number of our blogposts, we thought it was appropriate to reply.
Our initial impression is that the Lindenfeld article is comparatively reasonable – that is, compared to some prior