We’re quite familiar with people who say one thing, when they think that’s in their interest, and later when circumstances change, say something quite different. For example, as the late, great Molly Ivins pointed out in “Molly Ivins Can’t Say That, Can She?”, back during the energy crisis of the mid-to-late 1970s, folks down in
Back in March, we reported that a monstrous $27.6 million verdict had been tossed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in Polett v. Public Communications Inc., No. 1865 EDA 2011, slip op., (Pa. Super. March 1, 2013), for no less than four separate reasons: (1) exclusion of a “tolling agreement” whereby the plaintiff agreed
The post that follows is from the Reed Smith side of the blog only. The Decherts have a conflict.
We’ve been aware of a monstrous miscarriage of justice (in our opinion, of course) in Polett v. Zimmer for quite some time. The “monstrous” aspect was a $27.6 million verdict to a person who, frankly, wasn’t
This week we came across a couple of cases dealing with procedural issues that we don’t see every day, but which have annoyed us in the past. Since we don’t like being annoyed, we thought we’d pass them along. While neither of these involves anything like complete research, they would provide easy starting points in
Here’s something that both sides of the “v.” can agree with. For the last several years Westlaw has been endeavoring to add “trial orders” to its computerized databases. That’s good. We’ve sent them plenty of such orders. It’s infinitely better than the old days, when nobody knew about these opinions.
However, we’ve complained repeatedly about
The theme of this week’s PLAC (“Product Liability Advisory Council”) Spring Meeting is social media and its impact on product liability litigation. That’s given us some ideas for posts down the line, but one of the presentations was about what to do (if there’s anything that really can be done about jurors who use social
If it’s not Rule #1 in elementary appellate procedure, probably it should be – don’t lie on your certificate that your brief complies with applicable length limitations – at least where it flagrantly violates those limits. Chances are your opponent can count, since s/he did graduate from law school, and going to law school does
We liked the district court summary judgment grant in Vanderwerf v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 529 F. Supp.2d 1294 (D. Kan. 2008) a lot. It made our honorable mention list for best decisions of 2008 – which is something for a district court opinion in a one-off case. Before that, we discussed it in our
Last week’s decision in Carr v. Tillery, 2010 WL 92487 (7th Cir. Jan. 12, 2010), was not, strictly speaking, a product liability case. But it involves some key players in that field, and a very key location. And, truth be told, the case appeals to the voyeur within us.
The players are former partners
We’re delighted that many of our readers are, like us, Luddites.
We know that some of you folks don’t understand the meaning of complicated words like “RSS feed,” “gigabyte,” and “computer.”
So we’re betting that a few of you aren’t yet aware that Google announced last week that Google Scholar now makes available on-line, and