Search for: "Bexis"
Results 181 - 200
of 403
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Aug 2011, 9:42 am
Bexis also wrote an amicus brief in the case. [read post]
25 Aug 2011, 7:01 am
Bexis was away on vacation last week. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 8:25 am
Super. 2001) (yup, Bexis and Michelle did that one). [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 5:00 am
Even though Bexis invented the phrase, we hate it. [read post]
8 Aug 2011, 4:00 am
" (By contrast, Princetonians chanted, "Kill, Bexis, kill. [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 4:00 am
She probably got calls from all the most eligible glamour-boys (Hefner, Beatty, Jagger, Bexis) seeking confirmation that they had inspired the lyrics.Recently another in-house lawyer, who is also brilliant, sartorially splendid, and relentlessly thoughtful, brought something interesting to our attention: the Chamber of Commerce's June 23 letter to the Office of Inspector General about the threatened debarment of the Forest Labs CEO. [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 2:31 pm
With New York courts continuing to boldly go where no courts have gone before (or since), and forum-shopping plaintiffs following them, we think it’s time to review this issue.First, Buckman (with the caveat that Bexis’ role in that case gives us more than the usual defense interest in its correct application).Buckman, at the Supreme Court level, involved a separate claim for fraud on the FDA – because that was the only thing appealable at the time. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 4:00 am
At first we thought it was a reproduction of Munch's "Scream," but now we're convinced that it's a portrait of Bexis after first reading Levine. [read post]
16 Jun 2011, 12:58 pm
In all likelihood, the same thing couldn’t happen again today.Still, for personal and professional reasons we mourn the result because of Bexis’ involvement in winning that issue (the unanimous Supreme Court now says wrongly) in the first such case to be litigated, In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., Tires Products Liability Litigation, 333 F. 3d 763 (7th Cir. 2003). [read post]
19 May 2011, 1:15 pm
For those of you that use Bexis' book, that means there's more to use, but for Bexis that means that it’s time to start on update 15. [read post]
13 May 2011, 6:07 pm
Bexis also briefed that one for PLAC, and the Third Circuit took notice. [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 1:16 pm
Pa. 1985) (note: these are all Bendectin cases, and Bexis participated in their defense). [read post]
14 Mar 2011, 11:12 am
Supreme Court on March 30, 2011 For a "defense" / pharmaceutical industry perspective on the oral arguments for this Mensing Supreme Court case, see this article by Jim Beck -- aka "Bexis" at the Drug and Device Law blog -- who is an attorney at the Dechert LLP law firm in Philadelphia, PA: "Mensing Oral Argument In Stream Of Consciousness" (3/31/11). _____________________________________________________________________ On March 30, 2011… [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 12:24 pm
A couple of weeks ago we posted about the recently enacted Wisconsin tort reform statute, which, among a bunch of other things, included a “rebuttable” presumption that a product compliant with federal or state standards isn’t defective. [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 7:40 am
We don't want anybody to be confused by the Advocate's unfortunately timed republication to think that what Bexis wrote back in 2006 is an accurate description of expert discovery as it stands in 2011. [read post]
11 Feb 2011, 9:43 am
You can also email Bexis (Jim Beck) through the links on the blog, if you want to discuss PLAC.Do it. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 2:11 pm
Mallett, 701 N.W. 2d 523 (Wis. 2005) (a case Bexis unsuccessfully briefed for PLAC), where the court permitted a lead-paint case to proceed against seven manufacturers even though the plaintiff could not identify the manufacturer of the paint that caused the alleged harm.There is a limited exception, contained in Section 895.046(4), which excuses the plaintiff from proving up product ID, but those rules should not apply in drug and device cases. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 12:50 pm
We (well, Bexis) submitted an amicus brief in Hamilton in the Texas Supreme Court earlier this week. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 5:49 am
Bexis is a smart lawyer, so that's what he did on Friday, emphasizing the Montana Supreme Court's reaffirmation of the learned intermediary rule.And now we must confront the ugly bits in the opinion.Before we do that, let's confess to a smidgen of exasperation. [read post]
17 Dec 2010, 11:05 am
It's an unpublished opinion, which is both unfortunate (it's not binding precedent) and fortunate (meaning that plaintiff didn't come anywhere close to proving a case).The grounds for affirmance in Scelta: (1) no expert testimony that the Mirapex label was inadequate; (2) no causation because the prescribing doctor knew full well about the purported risk, having conducted two studies on that precise subject (we note the citation of one of Bexis's Bone Screw… [read post]
