Cases

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Barbara Bradley and her husband, Michael Bradley, sued Dr. David Sugarbaker, a thoracic surgeon at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, after Dr. Sugarbaker performed a surgical biopsy on Ms. Bradley that resulted in extensive complications. A trial ensued and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Sugarbaker. The Bradleys appealed, and we vacated the j

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION TWO BRADLEY R. WEINERT, ) No. ED107715 ) Appellant, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of ) St. Louis County

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. In this medical malpractice action, Plaintiffs-Appellants Barbara and Michael Bradley appeal the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment as to their medical battery claim. Following a jury trial as to their informed consent claim, they also assert that the district court erred by excluding expert testimony that a fine-needle aspiration (“FNA”)

444 Mich. 634 (1994) 513 N.W.2d 797 BRADLEY v. PHILIP MORRIS, INCORPORATED. Docket Nos. 96432, 96433. Supreme Court of Michigan. Decided March 1, 1994. Sachs, Waldman, O'Hare, Helveston, Hodges & Barnes, P.C. (by Kathleen L. Bogas), for the plaintiff. Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone (by W. Mack Faison<

199 Mich. App. 194 (1993) 501 N.W.2d 246 BRADLEY v. PHILIP MORRIS, INC. Docket No. 155142, 155143. Michigan Court of Appeals. Submitted August 12, 1992, at Lansing. Decided April 5, 1993, at 10:40 A.M. Sachs, Waldman, O'Hare, Helveston, Hodges & Barnes, P.C. (by Kathleen L. Bogas and Barbara M. Robinson</

194 Mich. App. 44 (1991) 486 N.W.2d 48 BRADLEY v. PHILIP MORRIS, INC Docket Nos. 112019, 112807. Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided October 29, 1991. Approved for publication April 28, 1992, at 9:00 A.M. Sachs, Nunn, Kates, Kadushin, O'Hare, Helveston & Waldman, P.C. (by Kathleen L. Bogas), for the plaintiff

MEMORANDUM OPINION Gladys Kessler, United States District Judge This case-was filed on September 22, 1999. In 2006, after a nine month trial, the Court ruled that the Defendant Cigarette Manufacturers had for decades conspired to deny the health effects of smoking in violation of RICO. USA v. Philip Morris, Inc., 449 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006) (“liability opini

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, United States District Judge *133In 2006, Judge Gladys Kessler of this Court issued a 1,600-page opinion and a final judgment and remedial order in the above captioned case finding that the defendants had made false, deceptive, and misleading statements and mandating that they publish corrective statements as a remedy. See United States v.

*123 MEMORANDUM OPINION Gladys Kessler, United States District Judge More than 15 years ago, the United States filed this RICO action against the major cigarette manufacturers operating in 1999. In 2006, after years of discovery, pre-trial litigation, and a nine-month bench trial,

MEMORANDUM OPINION Gladys Kessler, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Defendants R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (“RJRT”) and Lorillard Tobacco *33 Company (“Lorillard”) (collectively, “Defendants”)

793 F.Supp.2d 164 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 99-2496 (GK). United States District Court, District of Columbia. June 22, 2011. *165 Daniel K. Crane-Hirsch, Linda Margaret McMahon, Renee Brooker, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Consumer Litigatio

783 F.Supp.2d 23 (2011) United States of America, Plaintiff, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, Inc., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 99-2496 (GK). United States District Court, District of Columbia. March 28, 2011. *24 Daniel K. Crane-Hirsch, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Consumer Litigation, Ann M. Ravel, U.S. Department of Jus

WARNER, J. Appellant challenges a summary judgment holding that his malicious prosecution claim against appellee Epstein was barred., by the litigation privilege. The trial court granted summary judgment based upon Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So.3d. 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), which had decided, this issue just before the motion for summary judgment was heard.

MEMORANDUM OPINION GLADYS KESSLER, District Judge. Back in 2006, the Court issued its Final Judgment and Remedial Order # 1015 [Dkt. No. 5733], mandating that Defendants publish corrective statements on each of five topics on which the Court found they had made false and deceptive statements. These topics are: “(a) the adverse health effects of sm

MEMORANDUM OPINION GLADYS KESSLER, District Judge. On November 17, 2011, the parties were ordered to submit their views on (1) whether the Court should defer consideration of the issue of corrective action statements (as well as the issue of advertisement placement in retail stores); and (2) if so, for how long such consideration should be

SLIGHTS, J. I. Notwithstanding an emerging trend to the contrary, in Delaware, a plaintiff still must establish that a defendant owed her a duty of care in order to state a prima facie claim of negligence.1 Regardless of how morally, ethically or socially deplorable a defendant’s conduct may be viewed by other constituencies, in the eyes of the law, the defendant may

787 F.Supp.2d 68 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 99-2496 (GK). United States District Court, District of Columbia. June 1, 2011. *70 Daniel K. Crane-Hirsch, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Consumer Litigation, Ann M. Ravel, U.S. Department of Justic

SLIGHTS, J. I. A duly licensed physician and serial child predator established a medical practice in Lewes, Delaware in 1994 and thereafter perpetrated unimaginable abuse on a significant segment of his pediatric patient population. This reign of abuse continued until his arrest on December 16, 2009. After a thorough investigation by law enforcement, and a skilled prosecution by the Department of Justice,

Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan Syllabus Chief Justice: Justices: Elizabeth T. Clement Brian K. Zahra

449 F.Supp.2d 988 (2006) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, and Tobacco—Free Kids Action Fund, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, and National African American Tobacco Prevention Network, Intervenors, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., (f/k/a Philip Morris, Inc.), et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 99-2496(GK). United State