Search for: "Bexis"
Results 361 - 380
of 402
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Sep 2010, 8:07 am
As we discussed in an earlier post, that’s led to still more squabbling among the federal district courts.Full disclosure – Bexis filed amicus briefs for PLAC in all of those other cases on the Third Restatement issue.So the Third Restatement question has vexed Pennsylvania product liability law for quite a few years. [read post]
17 Sep 2009, 4:30 am
Drug manufacturers must adequately warn physicians of the potential side-effects of their prescription drugs; thereafter, the physician, with his special knowledge of the patient's needs, assumes the burden of presiding over the patient's best interests.Id. at 472.The more recent case (and another of Bexis' PLAC amicus projects) is Kennedy v. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 12:24 pm
A couple of weeks ago we posted about the recently enacted Wisconsin tort reform statute, which, among a bunch of other things, included a “rebuttable” presumption that a product compliant with federal or state standards isn’t defective. [read post]
22 Dec 2011, 11:59 am
Tires Products Liability Litigation, 333 F. 3d 763 (7th Cir. 2003) (Bexis played a part), and held that, because state class action rules (even if verbatim identical to federal Rule 23) might be interpreted differently, federal denial of class certification wasn’t preclusive against the same plaintiff’s lawyers seeking to certify an identical class action in some state court. [read post]
19 Jul 2007, 1:47 pm
We're so used to adverse decisions out of the District of Minnesota - what with the defibrillator MDLs "distinguishing" Buckman into near oblivion, and the heart valve MDL persisting in certifying classes despite being told not to by the Eighth Circuit - that good news from that district is like a breath of fresh air.That's what we got recently in In re Baycol Products Litigation, 2007 WL 2004432 (D. [read post]
16 Jun 2011, 12:58 pm
In all likelihood, the same thing couldn’t happen again today.Still, for personal and professional reasons we mourn the result because of Bexis’ involvement in winning that issue (the unanimous Supreme Court now says wrongly) in the first such case to be litigated, In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., Tires Products Liability Litigation, 333 F. 3d 763 (7th Cir. 2003). [read post]
24 Jan 2008, 12:25 pm
The Wyeth v. [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 10:51 am
Pa. 2007), one of Bexis' cases that we discussed here. [read post]
4 Dec 2009, 5:00 am
We tried to think of a great issue to explore today - and struck out. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 10:11 am
We’re very aware of that issue, since Bexis had a hand in winning it in In re BridgeStone/Firestone, Inc. [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 3:13 am
The coverage even reached northern Maine, where Bexis was on vacation.CML is a serious condition - a killer. [read post]
8 Oct 2008, 11:50 am
Bexis' book has a whole subsection ( §2.02[3]) just on this aspect of comment k. [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 1:16 pm
Pa. 1985) (note: these are all Bendectin cases, and Bexis participated in their defense). [read post]
20 Mar 2008, 10:29 am
Generally we like Judge Tereshko (or at least that's the word from Bexis, who practices in Philadelphia). [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 5:36 am
The objectors to the Inamed limited fund breast implant settlement had no greater success than similar objectors (us, well Bexis) to a similar Bone Screw settlement a few years later ? [read post]
29 Dec 2011, 6:53 am
Happy Christmas/Hanukkah/solstice and Merry New Year to all our readers. [read post]
5 Nov 2009, 12:29 pm
Bexis has been involved in HRT litigation (for somebody else), so neither of us can say anything substantive in public about that particular case - sorry. [read post]
13 Jun 2008, 12:12 pm
That's a great way to attract business to the state.And worst of all, lawyers practicing in New Jersey have to use the New Jersey state reporters, rather than the West System, when citing cases in their papers.And although it's not like defendants had no luck at all in New Jersey (in his younger days Bexis helped with cases that rejected market share liability and recognized the learned intermediary rule: Shackil v. [read post]
8 May 2008, 12:22 pm
As we've mentioned previously, we were both involved in the briefing in Ackermann v. [read post]
2 Jul 2009, 5:18 am
Wyeth, 526 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2008), a case both of us had a hand in (it was Herrmann's case, and Bexis contributed an amicus brief). [read post]
