Search for: "Bartlett v. State of California"
Results 41 - 60
of 109
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jul 2015, 11:51 am
The United States Supreme Court’s decision to hear Tyson Foods v. [read post]
2 Jul 2015, 11:18 am
In any event, after Mensingand Bartlett, federal law preempts state-law claims against generic drug manufacturers for failure to warn and design defect. [read post]
4 Jun 2015, 5:56 am
Geier v. [read post]
23 Feb 2015, 10:22 am
We’ve argued since PLIVA v. [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 4:14 pm
The California Supreme Court’s decision in Iskanian v. [read post]
31 Dec 2014, 5:00 am
All these actions – many hundreds of plaintiffs – were filed in various California state trial courts. [read post]
24 Dec 2014, 5:00 am
Hood v. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
Law Div. 2005).Heeding presumptions are something that exists in some states (Massachusetts, Missouri, Oklahoma), doesn’t in others (California, Connecticut, Alabama), and is limited in still others (New, Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas). [read post]
11 Aug 2014, 11:40 am
It should be noted that, after this Release went to press, the California Supreme Court addressed these issues and more in detail in Duran v. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 11:55 am
However, Conte was decided by but one of several California appellate courts, and we understand that they don’t have to follow each other’s decisions. [read post]
15 Apr 2014, 9:29 am
POM Wonderful v. [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 2:46 pm
Howmedica Osteonics Corp., California Supreme Court – state-court expert admission standards· Gaston v. [read post]
28 Feb 2014, 11:23 am
The case is Lashley v. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 8:53 am
See Bartlett v. [read post]
30 Dec 2013, 5:25 am
Bartlett, 133 S. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 5:00 am
.Bartlett v. [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 9:53 am
In the consultation report of the neurologist states: “Neurontin is wholly appropriate in this patient. [read post]
6 Sep 2013, 8:10 am
Co. v. [read post]
5 Jul 2013, 5:00 am
Nev. 2011) (FDA compliance “relevant and admissible” but not “a bar to recovery”); Bartlett v. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 7:32 am
Bartlett, holding that state-law design-defect claims which turn on the adequacy of a drug’s warnings are pre-empted by federal law. [read post]
