Cases

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2622 ___________________________ Anthony Collins lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., formerly known as St. Jude Medic

AMENDED MEMORANDUM *195AND ORDER1 SARIS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION New York City and forty-two New York counties have brought suit against numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers and subsidiaries alleging Medicaid fraud in violation of the federal Best Prices Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1

2022 IL App (1st) 210478 No. 1-21-0478 Filed June 23, 2022 Fourth Division IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT CHARLES MUHAMMAD

Filed 5/31/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ABBOTT LABORATORIES et al., Petitioners, v. D072577 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, (Orange County Super. Ct.

Filed 6/27/18 (unmodified opn. attached) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ABBOTT LABORATORIES et al., D072577 Petitioners, (Orange County Super. Ct. No. 30-2016-00879117-CU-B

790 F.Supp. 135 (1991) The Thermo Chem Participating Companies consisting of: ABBOTT LABORATORIES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THERMO CHEM, INC., Thomas Solvent Company, Thomas Solvent Company of Detroit, Inc., Thomas Solvent Company of Muskegon, Inc., Thomas Solvent of Indiana, Inc., TSC Transportation, Inc., and Richard E. Thomas, Defendants. No. 1:89-CV-994. United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, S

496 A.2d 154 (1985) Donna Marie CAVANAUGH v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Upjohn Company, Schering Corp., White Laboratories, Merck and Co., Inc., E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., and Eli Lilly and Co. No. 84-012. Supreme Court of Vermont. April 26, 1985. *156 Robert E. Manchester and Geoffrey W. Crawford of Manchester & O'Neill, P.C.,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER KEITH P. ELLISON, District Judge. ' THE COURT’S PRIOR MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, ISSUED ON NOVEMBER 8, 2011, IS WITHDRAWN. THIS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IS ISSUED IN ITS PLACE. Pending before the Court is Defendant Abbott Laboratories’ (“Defendant” or “Abbott”) Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to State a. Claim. (Doc. No. 16.) After considering the par

817 F.Supp.2d 424 (2011) Kim WOLPERT, Plaintiff, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendant. Civil Action No. 08-4849 (JBS/KMW). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. September 12, 2011. *426 Bruce P. McMoran, Esq., Michael Francis O'Connor, Esq., Douglas Schulyer Bramley, Esq., McMoran, O'Connor & Bramley, Manasquan, NJ, for P

¶ 1. MICHAEL J. GABLEMAN, J. This case comes before us on certification from the court of appeals. The State brought a civil action against Pharmacia Corporation ("Pharmacia"), alleging that the company reported inflated drug prices to Wisconsin Medicaid. A jury found Pharmacia liable for violating Wisconsin Statutes sections 100.18(1) (1992)1 — the Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA") — and 49.49(4

OPINION REINHARDT, Circuit Judge: The central question in this appeal arises out of a lawsuit brought by Smith-Kline Beecham (GSK) against Abbott Laboratories (Abbott) that contains antitrust, contract, and unfair trade practice (UTPA) claims. The dispute relates to a licensing agreement and the pricing of HIV medications, the latter being a subject of cons

SELYA, Circuit Judge., The development of new drugs is a costly, time-consuming, and highly speculative enterprise. In an effort to hedge their bets, drug companies sometimes opt to share the risks and rewards of product development with outside 'investors. This appeal introduces us to that high-stakes world. The outcome turns primarily on a contract provision that the parties dis

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SMITHKLINE BEECHAM No. 11-17357 CORPORATION, DBA GlaxoSmithKline, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellee, 4:07-cv-05702-CW v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendant-Appellant. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM No. 11-17373 CORPORATION, DBA GlaxoSmithKline, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 4:07-cv-05702-CW

OWEN, Circuit Judge: This suit was filed in state court on behalf of children who suffered neurological damage allegedly caused by vaccines containing Thimerosal that in turn contained mercury. The case was removed to federal district court. That court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to remand and then dismissed all claims against all defendants, relying on the National Childhood

*504 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BARBARA M.G. LYNN, District Judge. Before the Court are Motions to Dismiss filed by Boston Scientific Corporation [Docket Entry # 110], Cordis Corporation and Johnson & Johnson (collectively, “Cor-dis”) [Docket Entry # 112], and Abbott Laboratories and Abbott Vascular Solutions, Inc. (collectively, “Abb

(2008) BIRMINGHAM ASSOCIATES LTD., Plaintiff, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendant. No. 07 Civ. 11332(SAS). United States District Court, S.D. New York. April 14, 2008. OPINION & ORDER SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Birmingham Associates Ltd. ("Birmingham") has brought this action against Abbott

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before VANCE, FRANK M. JOHNSON, Jr., and THOMAS A. CLARK, Circuit Judges. ORDER: The district court judgment in this case was affirmed by this court in Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Association, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., 656 F.2d 92 (5th Cir.19

656 F.2d 92 1981-2 Trade Cases 64,265 JEFFERSON COUNTY PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,v.ABBOTT LABORATORIES, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 79-1150. United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. Aug. 31, 1981. Joe L. Tucker, Jr., Bessemer, Ala., Allen W.

EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs in two products liability actions, all of whom are Mississippi residents, appeal the district court’s denial of their motions to remand and dismissal of their state law claims against a variety of Mississippi resident and non-resident defendants. Among the defendants are manufacturers of certain childhood vaccines containing the pre

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit