Search for: "Bexis"
Results 241 - 260
of 403
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jan 2010, 9:24 am
" We're not sure what it means, or exactly what criteria were used to determine this ranking, but we're thankful for it as well (we flatter easily).Third, Bexis is taking his "made for radio" good looks and his opinionated voice to blog talk radio on "the Legal Docket" tonight at 9:30 p.m. [read post]
14 Jan 2010, 10:51 am
Usually, they’d rather settle.That’s why Bexis wrote the 1998 article, and then followed with dozen or so amicus briefs on the same issues in most of the cases that we've cited. [read post]
8 Jan 2010, 5:02 am
That's just one of a number of similar New York decisions (see Bexis' book for the more). [read post]
5 Jan 2010, 8:30 am
Since Bexis was involved in the original Bridgestone/Firestone win, he is much pleased to see it followed, especially since that case took some hits (as we discussed) in the ALI's Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation project.Thus, at least "in the context of MDL proceedings, certification in a state court of the same class under the same legal theories previously rejected by the federal district court presents an issue sufficiently identical to warrant… [read post]
24 Dec 2009, 11:32 am
We (Bexis) blogged about the case here, while sitting in an airport in San Diego coming back from a PLAC meeting. 2. [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 5:50 am
Defense counsel should save that quote, frame it, stick it on the wall somewhere - Bexis plans to put it in the next edition of his book. [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 1:11 pm
Rather, it's a publication of the University of Pennsylvania Law School (Bexis' alma mater), and Professor Burbank teaches there (where he taught Bexis conflict of law). [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 9:00 am
Bexis won't let it. [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 5:00 am
I want to see the look on his face: Hey, Bexis: I'm outta here! [read post]
10 Dec 2009, 12:05 pm
The amicus brief that Bexis filed for the WLF in the Caputo case looked into Medicare reimbursement of off-label uses as one example of the government's Dr. [read post]
4 Dec 2009, 5:00 am
We tried to think of a great issue to explore today - and struck out. [read post]
24 Nov 2009, 4:50 am
We couldn't have done much with it any way, given Bexis' involvement in (other) Vioxx litigation, so lets move on to something more interesting. [read post]
23 Nov 2009, 12:11 pm
Bexis can't say much anyway, since his firm's involved in Vioxx, and neither of us have seen the opinion, but Merck announced today that it was granted summary judgment today in the Texas state AG consumer protection litigation. [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 10:51 am
Pa. 2007), one of Bexis' cases that we discussed here. [read post]
17 Nov 2009, 5:00 am
That issue was front and center back when Herrmann briefed and argued, and Bexis supported with an amicus brief (are we an ugly tag team, or what?) [read post]
12 Nov 2009, 9:17 am
Bexis wrote an amicus brief in support of the ultimately unsuccessful effort to get the California Supreme Court to review the Conte decision. [read post]
9 Nov 2009, 10:29 am
"Permitted" is one of several safe harbor variants, and shows up, in addition to Arkansas, in Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Maine, Masssachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming (look 'em up in Bexis' book, page 2.14-8). [read post]
5 Nov 2009, 12:29 pm
Bexis has been involved in HRT litigation (for somebody else), so neither of us can say anything substantive in public about that particular case - sorry. [read post]
22 Oct 2009, 4:23 am
But at least this time, we're sticking to drug/device cases.The first case Bexis found was Gilmore v. [read post]
19 Oct 2009, 10:00 pm
Since this post does not speak to drug or device law, Bexis bowed out of participating in this one, leaving Herrmann alone at the keyboard.)Here's the first issue we don't care about: We got a free book in the mail! [read post]
