Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Massachusetts v. Purdue is a lawsuit filed on August 14, 2018, suing the Stamford, Connecticut-based company Purdue Pharma LP, which created and manufactures OxyContin, "one of the most widely used and prescribed opioid drugs on the market", and Purdue's owners, the Sacklers [1] accusing them of "widespread fraud and deception in the marketing of opioids, and contributing to the opioid crisis ...
Cases are listed in order of their neutral citation and where possible a link to the official text of the decision in PDF format has been provided. The case summaries below are not official or authoritative. Unless otherwise noted, cases were heard by a panel of 5 judges. Cases involving Scots law are highlighted in orange.
Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the pre-emption clause of the Medical Device Amendment bars state common-law claims that challenge the effectiveness or safety of a medical device marketed in a form that received premarket approval from the Food and Drug Administration.
In 1999, Johnson & Johnson had signed a contract with a company called Excerpta Medica. Its specialty was medical marketing. Its sub-specialty was producing ghostwritten, data-filled studies on the efficacy and safety of a client’s drugs, finding the right academic scholars to be listed as the authors and then placing the articles in prestigious academic journals.
Canterbury v. Spence (464 F.2d. 772, 782 D.C. Cir. 1972) was a landmark federal case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that significantly reshaped malpractice law in the United States. [1] [2] It established the idea of "informed consent" to medical procedures.
Investigates cases against erring examinees and professionals. Its decisions have the force and effect of the decisions of a court of law, with the same level of authority as a Regional Trial Court. After the lapse of the period within which to file an appeal, Commission decisions become final and executory.
Ultimately, Young instituted a federal habeas action. The court determined that the Community Protection Act was civil and, therefore, it could not violate the double jeopardy and ex post facto guarantees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the case turned on whether the Act was punitive "as applied" to Young. [4] 5th
Case law, also used interchangeably with common law, is a law that is based on precedents, that is the judicial decisions from previous cases, rather than law based on constitutions, statutes, or regulations. Case law uses the detailed facts of a legal case that have been resolved by courts or similar tribunals. These past decisions are called ...