Search for: "SELLERS v. WYETH"
Results 21 - 40
of 66
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Dec 2013, 1:04 pm
Wyeth, and Spence v. [read post]
3 Dec 2013, 7:54 am
See Strayhorn v. [read post]
8 Nov 2013, 5:00 am
Wyeth, 158 Cal. [read post]
6 Sep 2013, 8:10 am
Wyeth, No. 12-6078, 2013 U.S. [read post]
11 Jun 2013, 8:00 am
In Rosa v. [read post]
29 Mar 2013, 2:00 pm
Section 402A also expanded the scope of possible liable parties to also include all sellers in the distribution process related to the dissemination of the product to the public at large. [read post]
26 Mar 2013, 9:35 am
Wyeth, 15 A.3d 429 (Pa. 2011)(Court granted allocatur to address appeal in products liability case; this appeal may represent another opportunity for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to revisit the Restatement (Second) versus (Third) debate and finally clarify the issue).U.S. [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 2:06 pm
Wyeth, 168 Cal. [read post]
21 Nov 2012, 5:00 am
Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., 385 F.3d 961, 966 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding that a drug manufacturer is immune from suit unless “the FDA itself determines that a fraud has been committed on the agency during the regulatory-approval process”) citing Buckman Co. v. [read post]
11 Sep 2012, 11:36 am
Moreover, Wyeth v. [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 2:19 pm
Wyeth, et al. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 6:51 am
Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, 283 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2002), and Williams v. [read post]
25 Mar 2012, 7:16 pm
Wyeth v. [read post]
9 Mar 2012, 2:20 pm
(See, for instance, his concurrence in Wyeth v. [read post]
24 Feb 2012, 6:37 am
., LLC v. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 12:50 pm
Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, 471 F. [read post]
15 Sep 2011, 4:06 am
Wyeth. [read post]
11 Aug 2011, 1:09 pm
In section 11 recall-related liability is recognized only in limited situations after a recall has already otherwise been instituted:One engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing products is subject to liability for harm to persons or property caused by the seller's failure to recall a product after the time of sale or distribution if:(a)(1) a governmental directive issued pursuant to a statute or administrative regulation specifically requires the… [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 5:00 am
For the reasons why other courts disagree, we recommend reading Alm v. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 3:18 pm
Going beyond the terms of comment k, the Idaho court next decreed that “a seller next must establish that the product’s risk is in fact ‘unavoidable. [read post]
