Search for: "Hall v. Pfizer Inc"
Results 1 - 20
of 31
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 May 2010, 5:00 am
Pfizer, Inc., no. [read post]
13 Jul 2010, 5:00 am
Pfizer, Inc. [read post]
27 Jul 2012, 12:40 pm
Pfizer, Inc., 990 A.2d 17, 21 n.1 (Pa.Super. 2010) (rejecting fraud claim concerning promotion “for off-label uses for which the effectiveness had not been scientifically demonstrated”). [read post]
12 Jan 2010, 8:08 am
Pfizer, Inc., No. 09-22700-CIV, 2009 WL 4908937 (S.D. [read post]
Jury should decide if traveling—not driving—was essential function of vision-impaired drug rep’s job
7 Mar 2016, 6:44 am
Pfizer, Inc., March 2, 2016, per curiam). [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 5:00 am
Pfizer, Inc., 49 Cal.4th 758, 788 (2010)). [read post]
31 Dec 2009, 11:46 am
Pfizer Hospital Products Group, Inc., 872 S.W.2d 908, 911-12 (Tenn. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 11:55 am
Pfizer, Inc., 716 F.3d 1087, 1092-93 (8th Cir. 2013). [read post]
30 Apr 2015, 1:11 pm
The Court disagreed, citing SCOTUS’s Wyeth v. [read post]
3 Feb 2011, 2:11 pm
Pfizer, Inc., 851 F. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 5:00 am
Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Mar 2012, 5:36 pm
Pfizer, 196 F. [read post]
15 Jul 2015, 4:30 am
Pfizer, Inc., 2015 WL 3999488 (E.D. [read post]
3 Mar 2016, 5:19 am
Pfizer, Inc., 153 S.W.3d 758, 766 (Ky. 2004) (DTC exception “recognized only by New Jersey”); Mendez Montes De Oca v. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 12:57 pm
” Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Sep 2013, 7:28 am
The IPKat has stumbled across a decision earlier this year from the Federal Court, Canada, in Pfizer Canada Inc. v Pharmascience Inc. 2013 FC 120, dating back to 4 February. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 6:02 am
Hall v. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 10:04 am
Pfizer, 196 F. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:46 pm
Pfizer, Inc., 153 S.W.3d 758, 761 (Ky. 2004) (dictum also extends rule to medical devices). [read post]
27 May 2010, 3:40 pm
Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Inc., 1998 WL 81296 (9th Cir. 1998) (“anecdotal reports . . . do not attempt to isolate causes and are not intended to reach conclusions as to causation”) (in table at 139 F.3d 905).Hall v. [read post]
