Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
New Jersey and Texas Courts Reduce Vioxx Awards
On May 29, appellate courts in New Jersey and Texas threw out or reduced multi-million dollar awards to plaintiffs who claimed they were injured by Merck & Co.'s painkiller Vioxx. A three-judge panel of New Jersey's Appellate Division held in the consolidated cases of McDarby v. Merck & Co., A-0076-07, and Cona v. Merck & Co., 0077-07, that a $15.7 million award to plaintiff John McDarby should be reduced to $4.5 million because the federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act (FDCA) pre-empted New Jersey's product liability act's punitive damages remedy, N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-5c. (Cona had won no damages.) The appellate court left McDarby's reduced award for compensatory damages in place, however, because it found that state tort-law remedies were not pre-empted by federal law. In the Texas case, Carol Ernst v. Merck & Co. Inc., the three-justice appellate panel reversed the $26.1 million judgment for Carol Ernst, whose 59-year-old husband died in 2001 after taking Vioxx for about nine months. Stated the court, 'We find no evidence that [Ernst's husband] suffered a thrombotic cardiovascular event, i.e., a myocardial infraction triggered by a blood clot. Accordingly, appellee failed to show that the ingestion of Vioxx caused her husband's death.' Ernst's attorney, W. Mark Lanier of Houston, said following the decision, 'I'm upset, and I'll appeal it.'
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.