As we age, we sometimes forget how things used to be. It is not just age-related deterioration of the synapses in our hippocampi. (We do question why hippocampi and hippopotamuses are the preferred plural forms these days and why more anatomic structures are not named for things like seahorses.) There is also a recency effect.
Today’s case was decided back on April 23rd, but just showed up on our radar. That made us look back to see first what we were posting about on that date (answer: Lone Pine) and second, what was the world talking about on that date (answer: Chauvin guilty verdict, surging Covid-19 cases in
Lots of cases get parked in MDLs. There is no denying it. It’s built into the system. Individual cases get brought together in a single court for the purpose of consolidated pretrial proceedings. For the most part, except for cases selected as bellwethers, that means MDLs are focused on general discovery, general experts, and general
Happy San Jacinto Day. On April 21, 1836, Texans won the battle of San Jacinto, the last battle of the Texas revolution, in which Texas secured its independence from Mexico. In the past 185 years, Texans have never ceased showing an independent streak.
That is true for Texas product liability law. It is uncommonly sensible.
Delaware is having something of a moment in the sun. Although the state’s license plates have long announced it as “The First State,” that refers to being the first to ratify the U.S. Constitution. It is the second smallest in size and sixth smallest in population of the current fifty states. The casual peruser of
Product liability plaintiffs sometimes sue every entity in the distribution chain. But in many jurisdictions under many circumstances, there is an out for nonmanufacturing defendants. That was the case in Martinez v. Medical Depot et al., 434 F. Supp. 3d 537 (S.D. Texas 2020). The plaintiff was injured when an armrest on his unmotorized
There is no reasonable basis to remand Cazares v. Ortho El Paso, P.A., 2020 WL 4562231 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 2020) because there is no reasonable basis for plaintiff’s strict liability claims against a hospital. And that is sufficient.
That, however, is not what the magistrate who first ruled on plaintiff’s motion to remand
When we last left our story, plaintiffs had lost their fight to have Pennsylvania law apply to residents of Texas ( Atkinson I) and lost a chunk of their claims as barred by the Texas statute prohibiting failure to warn claims where a drug’s label has been approved by FDA and comment k (
Back during the Orthopedic Bone Screw mass tort litigation, one of major avenues of attack on the plaintiffs’ novel claims was to pursue every state-law avenue for rejecting the assertion of negligence per se predicated on supposed violations of the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”). That approach originally led us to 21 U.S.C. §337(a),
Truly unique cases are, well, unique. Most cases involve variations or combinations of cases we have seen before. Sometimes you get different results between two decisions on basically the same case with a single fact different. In February, we posted on an Eastern District of Pennsylvania decision on a motion to dismiss in a case