Search for: "*latiolais v. Parks"
Results 1 - 4
of 4
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
Parke, Davis & Co., 256 F.3d 1013, 1021 (10th Cir. 2001) (wrong to “construe [a treater’s] ‘heeding’ an adequate warning to mean [s/he] would have given the warning”) (applying Oklahoma law); In re Diet Drug Litigation, 895 A.2d 480, 490-91 (N.J. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 5:00 am
Emody v. [read post]
2 Jul 2009, 5:18 am
Rivera v. [read post]
28 Oct 2011, 7:00 am
Because the doctor testified that he did not read the warning label that accompanied [the drug] or rely on information provided by [the manufacturer's] detail men before prescribing the drug to [plaintiff], the adequacy of [the] warnings is irrelevant") (applying California law); Latiolais v. [read post]
