Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Vioxx Multidistrict Litigation Judge Profile: A Closer Look at the Odds
Statistical analysis of federal litigation provides a unique insight into particular judges involved in a case, including information on the probable timing/outcomes of cases, and what significant motions are generally granted or denied before a federal judge. Answers are based on verifiable facts, rather than anecdotal assumptions, and provide interested parties with more accurate data.
This type of analysis is particularly interesting for the recent federal Vioxx litigation. Vioxx, a Cox-2 inhibitor used for the treatment of pain, was withdrawn from the market by its manufacturer, Merck & Co., Inc., in September 2004 because of an apparent increased risk of heart attack and stroke. In February 2005, the federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all pending federal Vioxx product liability cases to Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ' transfers conventionally referred to as Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) transfers.
As of late April, almost 400 Vioxx product liability cases were pending before Judge Fallon. Details and significant orders concerning the Vioxx multidistrict litigation can be found on the court's Vioxx Web site at http://vioxx.laed.uscourts.gov/. Judge Fallon will control all discovery and pretrial matters in federal Vioxx litigation. Any cases that are not settled or decided through pretrial motions by Judge Fallon will be transferred back to the federal courts from which they originated.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.