Search for: ""Wyeth v. Levine" OR "555 U.S. 555""
Results 41 - 60
of 73
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jul 2013, 5:00 am
(U.S. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 12:50 pm
In Bartlett v. [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 5:00 am
That’s a long way from the sweeping presumption language in Wyeth v. [read post]
23 May 2013, 5:00 am
Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), preemption arguments are swimming upstream. [read post]
22 Mar 2013, 10:36 am
Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 565 (2009) (considering only the “narrower question” of “an adequate warning” claim; avoiding preemption of a “duty to contraindicate”); PLIVA v. [read post]
11 Mar 2013, 1:17 pm
Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009).That preemption battlefield is what initially prompted us to found this blog.Levine established a "clear evidence" standard for branded drug preemption, that is, "clear evidence" that the FDA would have rejected the warning proposed by the plaintiff. [read post]
5 Feb 2013, 11:32 am
Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), doesn’t leave brand defendants a lot to work with, there are still arguments to be made. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 12:47 pm
Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), which is probably the worst prescription drug decision of all time (at least as to preemption):Levine didn’t adopt any “general no-preemption rule. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 2:43 pm
Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), the case we most love to hate. [read post]
2 Aug 2012, 10:17 am
Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), holding that a state-law tort action against a brand-name drug manufacturer for failure-to-warn is not preempted. [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 2:40 pm
Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), before being consigned to 4-4 limbo in PLIVA, Inc. [read post]
6 Jun 2012, 5:35 am
Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), that the defendant could have “strengthened” the labeling by making the label “more prominent” generally. [read post]
24 May 2012, 5:13 am
Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 565 (2009) (quoting [Medtronic, Inc. v. [read post]
8 May 2012, 5:59 pm
Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), concerning NDA’d drug products. [read post]
7 May 2012, 5:00 am
Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), involved warning claims (again, they’re the most common), neither case was 100% on point.Bartlett initially demonstrates why “design defect” simply doesn’t fit prescription drugs (some medical devices are different). [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 6:23 pm
Supreme Court’s March 2009 decision in Wyeth v. [read post]
25 Mar 2012, 7:16 pm
Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009). [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 1:31 am
Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), applicable to brand-name drug products approved under an NDA. [read post]
16 Mar 2012, 5:00 am
Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), have done. [read post]
24 Feb 2012, 2:56 am
Kent, 552 U.S. 440 (2008).Garcia v. [read post]
