Search for: "IN RE WYETH" Results 61 - 80 of 702
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Nov 2015, 7:09 am
Back in 2009 – when the blog was still a Bexis/Herrmann operation – we wrote a catch-all punitive damages post entitled (oddly enough) “On Punitive Damages. [read post]
7 Oct 2015, 5:35 pm by S2KM Limited
Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach Long-Term Narcotic Use in MSAs - Meredith Warner and Steve Miller Re-Review/Reconsideration - Michelle Letter; James Raines; Jeff Knipper Data and Development Committee Update - Debbe Marciko and Sandra Mackler Limited Medical Records and the MSA - Denise Wrenn Weaning and Detox Strategies in the MSA - Jill Breard; Jennifer Doherty; Dr. [read post]
10 Jul 2015, 4:30 am
Wyeth Pharms., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00280-KOB, 2015 U.S. [read post]
18 Jun 2015, 1:00 pm
Wyeth, 85 A.3d 434 (Pa. 2014), for proposition that negligence is the only allowed design-related product liability theory). [read post]
26 May 2015, 7:42 am
  So far many plaintiffs have had trouble coming up with factual support to back such allegations – and sometimes we’re not even sure why they’re making them. [read post]
13 May 2015, 8:27 am by Rebecca Tushnet
 The court disagreed with the Eighth Circuit, In re Aurora Dairy Corp. [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 11:03 am by Schachtman
The first edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence [Manual] was published in 1994, a year after the Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Daubert. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 5:00 am
  Two other state supreme courts have reaffirmed the learned intermediary rule since then, Wyeth, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Mar 2015, 5:33 am
  Three justices concurred in Perez with the caveat that the entire edifice of judicial “deference” to the views of administrative agencies needs to be re-examined. [read post]
26 Feb 2015, 5:00 am
  One of our readers sent us that brief (a publicly filed document) and asked us to comment.So we will, but we’re not identifying either the case or the plaintiff’s lawyer – if you’re reading, you know who you are.To us, the plaintiff’s proposition is, in one word, absurd. [read post]