Search for: "E.D. v. Pfizer, Inc."
Results 101 - 120
of 142
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Sep 2009, 4:30 am
Medtronic, Inc., 128 S. [read post]
2 Sep 2009, 11:22 pm
Supp.2d 666, 674-75 (E.D. [read post]
25 Jun 2009, 4:29 am
In re Amgen Inc. [read post]
10 Jun 2009, 10:00 pm
Pfizer, Inc., 584 F. [read post]
15 Apr 2009, 4:44 am
Supp.2d ___, 2009 WL 307019, at *17-18 (E.D. [read post]
20 Mar 2009, 2:05 am
Pfizer Hospital Products Group, Inc., 783 F.Supp. 1466, 1475 (D. [read post]
22 Jan 2009, 2:06 am
Pfizer Inc., 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir. 2004) (same; physician considered warning inappropriate) (applying California law).Under these facts, if Conte were an ordinary prescription drug product liability case, plaintiff would have been out of court and out of luck, just like Motus. [read post]
8 Jan 2009, 4:07 am
Pfizer, Inc., 253 F.R.D. 11, 16-17 (D. [read post]
29 Dec 2008, 9:00 pm
Pfizer Inc., 867 N.Y.S.2d 425 (N.Y.A.D. 2008) (state appellate holding that plaintiff's home state controls on choice of law; similar to, but much better than, Desiano); (15) Vanderwerf v. [read post]
19 Dec 2008, 3:04 pm
Defendants Pfizer Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, and Apotex Inc. last week asked the U.S. [read post]
8 Oct 2008, 11:50 am
Pfizer, Inc., 153 S.W.3d 758, 762 (Ky. 2004) (not a holding, but dictum suggesting broad comment k application).Louisiana: Kinney v. [read post]
2 Oct 2008, 12:36 pm
Danek Medical, Inc., 1999 WL 1054864, *6 (M.D. [read post]
4 Sep 2008, 10:07 am
Pfizer, Inc., 2006 WL 2819046 (D.N.J. [read post]
3 Jul 2008, 7:26 pm
Pfizer, Inc., 812 F. [read post]
8 May 2008, 12:22 pm
Pfizer Inc., 358 F.3d 659 (9th Cir. 2004). [read post]
1 May 2008, 11:21 am
Beretta USA, Inc., No. 05-6942-cv (2d Cir. [read post]
20 Mar 2008, 10:29 am
Pfizer, Inc., 2006 WL 2819046, at *3 (D.N.J. [read post]
26 Feb 2008, 3:38 am
Pfizer, Inc., ___ F. [read post]
7 Feb 2008, 10:46 am
The leading case is Kemp v. [read post]
17 Jan 2008, 7:55 am
Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992) (holding that state common law torts were something that was subject to preemption), Medtronic, Inc. v. [read post]
