Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical

SCOTUS Doubles Down on Design Defect Labeling Preemption and Rescues Generic Drug Manufacturers From the “Stop-Selling” Abyss The author wishes to thank Porter Durham for his assistance in preparing this post.  Porter is currently a Summer Associate with the firm.    On June 24, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett that state law design-defect claims focusing on labeling of generic drugs are preempted... Continue Reading

© Max Kennerly. The original for this post is The Undeniable Fact Of A Pro-Big-Business Supreme Court at Litigation & Trial Lawyer Blog.

  Three years ago, Professor Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago was peddling falsehoods and misconceptions about malpractice law that wouldn’t pass a 1L Torts class. Via Walter Olson, I see he’s back with a piece titled, “The Myth of a Pro-Business SCOTUS,” claiming “Commentators inaccurately condemn the five conservative justices as corporate shills.” … Continue reading

On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. __ (2013), holding that the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant’s generic prescription drug was defectively designed was impliedly preempted.  Although in the drug context, Bartlett may have implications for cases involving medical devices, particularly design defect... Continue Reading

© Max Kennerly. The original for this post is The Worst Supreme Court Cases Of 2013 For Consumers, Employees, And Patients at Litigation & Trial Lawyer Blog.

Back in January 2012, I posted a short item titled, Supreme Court Sets The Tone For 2012 Term: Might Makes Right, in which I recounted how the Supreme Court had begun the 2011-2012 term with two opinions that were great if you own a prison management company or fake credit repair company, but not so … Continue reading

U.S. Supreme Court Addresses “Failure to Warn” Negligence Claims in Rx Warning Labels New Hampshire law applies a hybrid design-defect standard that imposes liability for harm caused by a drug product if the drug product, in light of the manufacturer’s warning on the label, is unreasonably dangerous. Does such a framework avoid federal preemption issues that have doomed failure to warn negligence claims premised on taking allegedly dangerous... Continue Reading