Cases

487 F.Supp. 1359 (1980) In re INSULIN MANUFACTURING ANTITRUST LITIGATION. No. 418. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. April 10, 1980. Before ANDREW A. CAFFREY, Chairman, and ROY W. HARPER, CHARLES R. WEINER, EDWARD S. NORTHROP and ROBERT H. SCHNACKE, Judges of the Panel. OPINION AND ORDER PER CURIAM. This litigation consists of three

15-3364-cv In re ACTOS End-Payor Antitrust Litigation UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT _____________________ AUGUST TERM 2016 (ARGUED: SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 DECIDED: FEBRUARY 8, 2017) Docket No. 15-3364

OPINION ROTH, Circuit Judge: This interlocutory appeal involves claims brought against GlaxoSmithKline LLC (GSK) by third-party payors (TPPs), based on GSK’s alleged misrepresentation and concealment of the significant safety risks associated with use of Avandia, Avandam-et, and Avandaryl (collectively, Avandia), Type II diabetes drugs. GSK argues that t

409 F.Supp.2d 1275 (2006) In Re: URETHANE ANTITRUST LITIGATION This Order Relates to the Polyether Polyol Cases No. 04-MD-1616-JWL. United States District Court, D. Kansas. January 18, 2006. *1276 *1277 George A. Hanson, Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson Woody LLP, Kansas City, MO, Roy Morrow

*108First, the lawsuit must be objectively baseless in the sense that no reasonable litigant could realistically expect success on the merits. If an objective litigant could conclude that the suit is reasonably calculated to elicit a favorable outcome, the suit is immunized under Noerr, and an antitrust claim premised on the sham exception must fail.

649 F.Supp.2d 18 (2009) In re ZYPREXA PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. James Head, in Yolanda Chavez, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Eli Lilly & Company, Defendant. Nos. 04-MD-1596 (JBW), 06-CV-2592 (JBW). United States District Court, E.D. New York. July 31, 2009. *20 Samuel R. Bagenstos, Washington University Law School, St. Loui

(2008) In re: ZYPREXA PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. In re: Eli Lilly and Company Securities Litigation. Nos. 04-MDL-1596, 07-CV-1310. United States District Court, E.D. New York. April 30, 2008. MEMORANDUM, ORDER & JUDGMENT JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge: Table of Contents I.

671 F.Supp.2d 397 (2009) In re ZYPREXA PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Jim Hood, Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, ex rel. The State of Mississippi, Plaintiff, v. Eli Lilly & Company, Defendant. Nos. 04-MD-1596, 07-CV-645. United States District Court, E.D. New York. December 1, 2009. *398 Bailey Perrin Bailey,

309 F.Supp.2d 531 (2004) In re REZULIN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 1348). No. 00 Civ.2843(LAK). United States District Court, S.D. New York. March 15, 2004. *532 *533 *534 *535 *536

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge. 1. Introduction This memorandum and order addresses plaintiffs’ application for class certification. See Third Amended Class Action Complaint and Supplemental Memorandum in Support Amended and Renewed Motion for Class Certification, dated July 26, 2002. Extensive briefing and argument by the parties on the issue have been con

MEMORANDUM OPINION KAPLAN, District Judge. Plaintiffs in this putative class action, which has been consolidated for pretrial purposes with hundreds of individual products liability actions, seek relief based upon their ingestion of the prescription drug Rezulin. The matter currently is before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion to certify (1) a class of all persons who ingested Rezulin and their spouses,

850 F.Supp. 769 (1994) In re RECOMBINANT DNA TECHNOLOGY PATENT AND CONTRACT LITIGATION. MDL No. 912. Civ. Nos. IP-87-0219-C, IP-88-1463-C. United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division. March 2, 1994. *770 Robert C. Miller, Jean-Paul Lavalleye, John H. Weber, Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, Arlington,

OPINION AND ORDER PER CURIAM. This litigation consists of one action pending in the District of Delaware and one action pending in the Southern District of Florida. Texaco, Inc. (Texaco); its subsidiary, Texaco Petroleum Company (Texaco Ecuador); Gulf Oil Corporation (Gulf); and its subsidiary, Ecuadorian Gulf Oil Company (Gulf Ecuador) are the same four defendants named in both actions. Phoenix Canada Oil

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court South Carolina Public Interest Foundation and John Crangle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. Alan Wilson, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina; Willoughby & Hoefer, P.A.; and Davidson, Wren & DeMasters, P.A., Respondents. Appellate Case No. 2021-000343 Appeal from Richland County R. Kirk Griffin, Circuit Court Judge Opin

A. Rule 12(b)(1) - Lack of Standing 1. Standard of Review On a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, a court must first determine if the motion is a "facial" or a "factual" attack. Constitution Party of Pa. v. Aichele , 757 F.3d 347, 357 (3d Cir. 2014). A facial attack "considers a c

Case: 18-41186 Document: 00515313980 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals No. 18-41186 Fifth Circuit FILED

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1924 Doc: 41 Filed: 06/12/2025 Pg: 1 of 17 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1924 STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA EX REL. MARK A. HUNT, In his capacity as Auditor, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CAREMARKPCS HEA

MEMORANDUM, ORDER & JUDGMENT JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge: Table of Contents I. Introduction................................................................20 II. History of Zyprexa Litigation.................................................21 III. Facts......................................................................24

MELLOY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellants assert wrongful-death claims under the public-liability provision of the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (the "Price-Anderson Act" or the "Act") alleging exposure to nuclear radiation. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 2014, 2210. Defendants moved to dismi

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6313 Doc: 58 Filed: 03/18/2024 Pg: 1 of 19 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-6313 DANIEL W. PHOENIX, a/k/a Daniel W. Jamison, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MARK AMONETTE, Virginia Department of Corrections Chief