Usually, when we’ve had occasion on this blog to touch on the Erie doctrine, it has been in the context of castigating one federal court or another for adopting an expansive view of state tort law in the absence of state court authority for that interpretation.
But there’s more to Erie than that, and
First of all, yeah, we know about Wyeth v. Rowatt, ___ P.3d ___, 2010 WL 4812919 (Nev. 2010). We’re just extremely limited in what we can say, since here on the East Coast, Dechert handles similar hormone therapy litigation for the same client. Rowatt is one of those times when we most miss Herrmann.
We covered the topic of product recalls being excludable as subsequent remedial measures in some detail in our Total Recall post, including a list of all the cases we were aware of (whether they involved drugs/devices or not) that had excluded recalls for this reason. There wasn’t a single federal court of appeals in the
Once upon a time, quite a few years ago, one of us had the pleasure of a having a case before the (late?) Hon. John Dowling of the Dauphin County (Harrisburg, Pa.) Court of Common Pleas. We still remember winning the case on summary judgment – after finishing our argument, the first words out of
We received a copy of Ford Motor Co. v. Reese, ___ S.E.2d ___, 2009 WL 2951299 (Ga. App. Sept 16, 2009) (slip opinion), from Charles Beans over at Goodman McGuffey the other day.
But that’s not a drug or device case.
No it isn’t. But the issue raised in Reese, whether