Search for: "United States v. Bartlett" Results 61 - 80 of 211
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Apr 2016, 12:51 pm
  Before a new drug may legally be distributed in the United States, both its contents and its labeling must be preapproved by the FDA. [read post]
13 Feb 2016, 4:46 pm by Patricia Salkin
This is an appeal from an amended opinion and order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, dismissing at the pleadings stage all federal claims against the defendants on qualified immunity grounds because the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged that their constitutional rights were violated, and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. [read post]
27 Aug 2015, 5:01 am
Public Service Commission, is a “a substantial interest to be achieved by restrictions on commercial speech,” 447 U.S. 557, 564 (1980), we’re certain that mining the government’s briefs in prior First Amendment litigation such as United States v. [read post]
13 Aug 2015, 10:56 am
Forest Laboratories, a case from the Lexapro MDL, the court agreed with defendant’s argument that per Bartlett, the United States Supreme Court has held that design defect claims involving pharmaceutical products are preempted. [read post]
11 Jun 2015, 4:43 am by Brian Wolfman
Here is the abstract: Recent research indicates that the current cost of generic medications in the United States is the highest in history. [read post]
5 Jun 2015, 1:29 pm
  Notwithstanding, that claim fails for the simple reason that the United States Supreme Court has held that design defect claims involving pharmaceutical products are preempted. [read post]
4 Jun 2015, 5:56 am
On May 26, 2015, the Solicitor General’s office responded to the United States Supreme Court’s Oct. 14, 2014 invitation for the government’s views on the certioraripetition filed in Athena Cosmetics, Inc. v. [read post]
In Morrison, the Supreme Court limited investors’ ability to bring private 10b-5 securities fraud actions to cases where the securities at issue were purchased on a United States stock exchange or were otherwise purchased in the U.S. [read post]
24 Dec 2014, 5:00 am
  In this case the United States Supreme Court held that a state attorney general action (really brought by contingent fee counsel proceeding in an AG’s name), ostensibly on behalf of all the citizens of a state, did not qualify as a “mass action” under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) so as to allow removal to federal court. [read post]