⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

20 opinions for “Erickson v. Wyeth”

District Court, District of Columbia · 2019-01-07 · Published · cited 0× · 353 F. Supp. 3d 140
While the Court does not sanction the falsification of medical records, beyond conclusory allegations, Plaintiff simply has not proffered any credible evidence to create a triable fact as to whether Defendants falsified his records. In Johnson v. Caputo , the Third Circuit granted summary judgement when the plaintiff's "only argument relies on his unsupported belief that defendants intentionally falsified his records to justify the medical diagnose
District Court, District of Columbia · 2018-12-21 · Published · cited 0× · 348 F. Supp. 3d 113
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT METRO CRIME PREVENTION'S MOTION TO DISMISSArthur Burnham ("Plaintiff") brings a variety of claims against several Defendants.*114Relevant for the purposes of this motion, he brings a claim under
District Court, District of Columbia · 2018-12-14 · Published · cited 15× · 348 F. Supp. 3d 109
TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE Arthur Burnham ("Plaintiff") brings a variety of claims against several Defendants. Relevant for the purposes of this motion, he brings a claim for product liability against Wyeth Pharmaceuticals LLC (erroneously identified as "Wyeth Laboratories Inc.") ("Defendant Wyeth"). Defendant Wyeth filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (Docket No. 29). For t
Washington Supreme Court · 2025-10-30 · Published · cited 0×
FILE THIS OPINION WAS FILED FOR RECORD AT 8 A.M. ON OCTOBER 30, 2025 IN CLERK’S OFFICE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON OCTOBER 30, 2025 SARAH R. PENDLETON
District Court, S.D. Illinois · 2007-06-20 · Published · cited 13× · 500 F. Supp. 2d 1063; 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44609; 2007 WL 1810464
500 F.Supp.2d 1063 (2007) Jacquelyn GILES, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Jeff Giles, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. WYETH, INC, a Delaware Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, formerly known as American Home Products Corporation, Defendants. No. No. 04-cv-4245-JPG. United States District Court, S.D. Illinois. June 20, 2007.</
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2010-10-28 · Published · cited 50× · 625 F.3d 22; 2010 WL 4260903
625 F.3d 22 (2010) Angel A. VEGA-COLÓN, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS, Defendant, Appellee. No. 09-1861. United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Submitted June 10, 2010. Decided October 28, 2010. *23 Anibal Escanellas-Rivera and Escanellas & Juan, P.S.C. on brief for appellant.
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 2012-08-24 · Published · cited 0× · 128 Haw. 375; 289 P.3d 1011
Opinion of the Court by FOLEY, J. Castle & Cooke Homes Hawaii, Inc. (Castle & Cooke) and the Land Use Commission of the State of Hawaii (LUC) appeal from the Final Judgment (judgment) entered October 5,2011 in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit1 (circuit court). Judgment was entered pursuant to the “Order Summarily Denying Appellees Supplemental Memorandum Re: Jurisdicti
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2021-09-15 · Published · cited 1× · 14 F.4th 671
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1355 ___________________________ John Penrod; Gus Erpenbach; Juan Welsh, all individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants
District Court, M.D. Florida · 2014-03-06 · Published · cited 11× · 2 F. Supp. 3d 1292; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28904; 2014 WL 897033
OPINION AND ORDER JOHN E. STEELE, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on review of defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 55) filed on May 17, 2013. Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. # 59) on June 14, 2013. Defendants filed a Reply (Doc. # 62) on June 28, 2013, and plaintiffs filed a Sur-Reply (Doc. # 65) on July 5, 2013. I.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2025-06-02 · Published · cited 0×
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A24-1275 Fidel Pizarro-Rios, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. Filed June 2, 2025
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2022-09-30 · Published · cited 28× · 50 F.4th 445
Case: 21-30534 Document: 00516491629 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/30/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 30, 2022
California Court of Appeal · 2024-05-28 · Published · cited 0×
Filed 5/3/24; Certified for Publication 5/28/24 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO SAN ANTONIO REGIONAL HOSPITAL, E082481 Petitioner, (Super.Ct.No. CIVSB2217117) v.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2024-03-12 · Published · cited 37× · 95 F.4th 1136
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-3675 ___________________________ Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Plaintiff - Appellant v. Alan McClain, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Arkansas Insu
Chudik v. Hirshfeldpublic domain
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2021-02-08 · Published · cited 6× · 987 F.3d 1033
Case: 20-1833 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 02/08/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ STEVEN C. CHUDIK, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ANDREW HIRSHFELD, PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2024-09-23 · Published · cited 0×
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A24-0385 State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Raenard Romalle Douglas, Respondent. Filed September 23, 2024 Reversed
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2024-06-21 · Published · cited 3× · 105 F.4th 1020
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-2840 ___________________________ Chiya C. Lloyd Plaintiff - Appellant v. FedLoan Servicing Defendant - Appellee
District Court, S.D. West Virginia · 2017-03-31 · Published · cited 2× · 248 F. Supp. 3d 765; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49592; 63 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 258
MEMORANDUM OPINION . AND ORDER John T. Copenhaver, Jr., United States District Judge Pending are defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 3, filed March 1, 2016, and plaintiff’s alternative motion for leave to amend, ECF No. 11, filed May 9, 2016. I. Background On January 9, 2014, a chemical mixture leaked from a storage facility owned and operated by Freedom Industries
South Dakota Supreme Court · 2022-08-03 · Published · cited 19× · 2022 S.D. 43
#29409, #29420-a-MES 2022 S.D. 43 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA **** HEALY RANCH, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BRET HEALY, Individually and d/b/a HEALY RANCH PARTNERSHIP, Defendant and Appellee. **** APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF T
District Court, E.D. North Carolina · 2015-06-22 · Published · cited 4× · 113 F. Supp. 3d 834; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80440; 2015 WL 3855135
ORDER TERRENCE W. BOYLE, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on defendant Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica Inc.’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [DE 20]. Plaintiff responded, and a hearing was held on June 16, 2015, in Edenton, North Carolina. Also before the Court are defendant’s motion to stay discovery [DE 29] and motion
District Court, W.D. North Carolina · 2017-05-10 · Published · cited 3× · 260 F. Supp. 3d 485
ORDER Max O. Cogburn Jr., United States District Judge THIS MATTER is before the court on the pending Motion to Dismiss (# 11) in this matter as well as the plaintiffs Motion to Reconsider or Alternatively Certify for Appeal (# 33).1 Having considered the Motion and reviewed the pleadings, the court enters the following Order.