At first glance, pharmaceutical companies' victories in some recent "failure to warn" cases might seem to signal a pro-defendant trend. But, as Paul J. Pennock of Weitz & Luxenberg points out, a more careful review of the decisions reminds us that if the facts are against you (or you haven't developed them well), you're probably going to lose.
September 30, 2006 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
News flash No. 1: Bad facts make bad law!
A few recent decisions, like Abramowitz v. Cephalon, Inc., 2006 WL 560639 (N.J. Super. L. March 3, 2006), might seem at first blush to indicate a trend among some courts to cast a more jaundiced eye on pharmaceutical failure-to-warn cases. A review of these decisions, however, reveals something all lawyers know: If the facts are against you (or you haven’t developed them well), you’re probably going to lose. It’s that simple and it always has been.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Join the industry's top owners, investors, developers, brokers & financiers at THE MULTIFAMILY EVENT OF THE YEAR!
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Lower Manhattan firm seeks a premises liability litigator (i.e., depositions, SJ motions, and/or trials) with at least 3-6 years of experien...
Join the Mendocino County District Attorney s Office and work in Mendocino County home to redwoods, vineyards and picturesque coastline. ...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
