Search for: "APPLIED MEDICAL V US SURGICAL CORP"
Results 41 - 60
of 95
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jan 2011, 11:06 am
Jim Arnold Corp. v. [read post]
4 Sep 2009, 5:51 am
Plaintiff cites Dilon Medical Supply Corp. v. [read post]
28 Mar 2023, 2:19 pm
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. [read post]
14 Oct 2014, 5:30 am
At the other pole is Legal Services Corp. v. [read post]
23 Oct 2020, 3:17 pm
Union Carbide Corp. [read post]
23 Dec 2013, 5:16 am
Pfizer, Inc., 712 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 2013), and Harden Manufacturing Corp. v. [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 10:51 am
In Panacryl, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant's synthetic surgical stitches (a medical device) were defective and caused or facilitated various types of post-surgical infections. [read post]
5 Jan 2021, 6:33 pm
In its landmark 2011 decision in CIGNA Corp. v. [read post]
19 Sep 2017, 5:58 am
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. [read post]
10 May 2016, 10:45 am
Stryker Corp., 669 F.3d 501 (5th Cir. 2012); and Stengel v. [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 2:00 pm
This has been particularly useful in medical device cases covered by Riegel preemption, as it requires a nexus between a claimed FDCA violation and the device that the plaintiff actually used. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 12:26 pm
Hahn applies to medical devices. [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 6:35 am
Prof’l Corp. v. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 8:57 am
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. [read post]
15 Jan 2015, 12:17 pm
Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1460 (Fed. [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 8:03 am
P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. [read post]
21 Sep 2017, 9:38 am
Prof’l Corp. v. [read post]
8 Aug 2007, 4:16 am
Holly Sugar Corp. [read post]
26 Jul 2012, 7:25 am
Mandek Corp., 281 N.J. [read post]
6 Sep 2006, 7:07 am
The very fact that the Applied Medical v. [read post]
