Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Reducing Frivolous Litigation
In the first installment of this article, published last month, we discussed the problem of frivolous lawsuits against drug and medical device firms and how state legislatures have been moving to curb frivolous suits in another arena – professional negligence – through the introduction of a requirement for an affidavit of merit. This month, we look at how the lessons learned in the case of professional negligence suits could be applied to reduce the filing of unfounded complaints against drug and medical device makers.
Should Affidavits of Merit Be Required in Drug and Medical Device Litigation?
While the primary purpose of professional negligence affidavit-of-merit statutes is to reduce frivolous professional liability lawsuits, professional negligence suits are not the only actions prone to abuse. Frivolous litigation is also rampant in pharmaceutical and medical device mass tort litigations. See Damiani DJ: Proposals for Tort Reform in the Evaluation of Expert Testimony in Pharmaceutical Mass Tort Cases. 13 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 517, 518-519 (2003). Accordingly, if affidavit-of-merit statutes can successfully reduce frivolous professional liability actions, similar statutes should also successfully reduce frivolous pharmaceutical and medical device actions. In either type of litigation, affidavit-of-merit statutes require both the plaintiff and the attorney to invest time prior to or at the onset of the litigation (instead of years later) and make a frank determination regarding the merits of the suit. All parties, and society as a whole, benefit from limiting litigation to meritorious claims. In particular, permitting only meritorious actions to proceed would lower prescription prices for the public, since the cost of frivolous litigation costs would no longer be passed along to the consumer.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.