We’ve stumbled across a few law review articles recently.
We know and bemoan (as do many scholars and most practitioners) that practicing lawyers don’t actually read the law reviews these days. We thought we’d share with you the gist of a few recent offerings, so that you could take a look if anything grabs your
Professor Richard Epstein, of The University of Chicago Law School, has this article about Wyeth v. Levine in this week’s issue of Forbes.
Professor Epstein favors preemption, but he thinks that Wyeth’s position does not go far enough: Wyeth seeks preemption only because of a conflict between the warnings that the FDA required and the
There are many eyes to the preemption storm.
But one of those eyes is surely this: Does tort litigation improve the safety of drugs?
The plaintiffs’ bar screams yes: It insists that lawsuits unearth new information that protect the public.
Is that true?
We haven’t seen any empirical scholarship on this point (though, Lord knows,
Here’s another post along the lines of “all preemption, all the time.”
Professor Martin Kotler of Widener University School of Law has posted on SSRN his manuscript Shared Sovereign Immunity as an Alternative to Federal Preemption: An Essay on the Attribution of Responsibility for Harm to Others. Professor Kotler argues that courts ought not
Dan Troy and Rebecca Wood have contributed an article, “Federal Preemption at the Supreme Court,” to the most recent issue of the Cato Supreme Court Review.
In a nutshell, Troy and Wood note that there were generally “lopsided majorities” in favor of preemption in the Supreme Court’s decisions last Term. The authors then make three
A couple of weeks ago, we linked to Part One of Anthony Sebok and Benjamin Zipursky’s Findlaw article about Wyeth v. Levine, the drug preemption case pending in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sebok and Zipursky have now published Part Two of that article.
Although we disagree with the conclusion that the authors reach, here’s a
In this week’s FindLaw column, Anthony Sebok and Benjamin Zipursky discuss the facts of Wyeth v. Levine and urge the Supreme Court to “decide Levine quite narrowly (however it decides) and we are cautiously optimistic that it will do so.”
Among other things, Sebok and Zipursky say that:
“The problem with Levine is that the
We’ve grown accustomed to hearing complaints that the Food and Drug Administration is powerless. “How can the Agency possibly cause companies to act responsibly?,” critics (and plaintiffs’ counsel) ask. Historically, the FDA lacked the power to order product recalls, and its authority is limited in other ways. Companies, we’re told, run roughshod over the Agency.
Mein Gott!
Look at Alexandra D. Lahav’s article in the Tulane MDL Symposium:
“This discussion is inspired by the analysis of Mark Herrmann and Jim Beck. See Drug and Device Law, There Ought To Be A Law (An Odd Implication of Kent), https://www.druganddevicelawblog.com/2008/03/05/there-oughta-be-law-odd-implication-of/ (Mar. 5, 2008 7:42 EDT).”
Alexandra D. Lahav, “Recovering the Social