Cases

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 07-3149 JACQUELYN G ILES, individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Jeff L. Giles, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W YETH, INC., and W YETH P HARMACEUTICALS, formerly known as A MERICAN H OME P RODUCTS C ORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees. Appea

HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I join the majority opinion except Part 11(C)(2) and the related portion of Part III, from which I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the summary dismissal of claims based on Wyeth’s alleged negligence in failing to adequately investigate adverse reports regarding Redux after FDA approval, and in faili

RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT JANET BOND ARTERTON, District Judge. On August 18, 2004, Plaintiffs Margaret Fraser and Joseph Fraser filed a Complaint against Defendants Wyeth, Inc. and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively “Wyeth” or “Defendants”), claiming failure to warn, strict products liability, negligence, misrepresentation, and punitive damages under the Connecticut Product Liability Ac

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION STEFAN R. UNDERHILL, District Judge. Defendants Wyeth, Inc. and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively “Wyeth”) have argued that Connecticut “does not recognize strict liability claims for design defects in prescription drugs” under the Connecticut Product Liability Act (“CPLA”). See Wyeth’s Bench Br. Regarding Design Defect Claims Under Connecticut Law (doc.

703 F.Supp.2d 508 (2010) WYETH, Plaintiff, v. SANDOZ, INC., Defendant. No. 5:07-CV-234-D. United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division. March 12, 2010. Order Denying Certificate of Appealability July 15, 2010. *511 Richard W. Ellis, Ellis & Winters, Raleigh, NC, for Plaintiff. F.

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 13a0335p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X Plaintiffs-Appellants, - GLORIA STRAYHORN, et al., -

STAHL, Circuit Judge. For a period of time in 1997, the appellant, Michael Tersigni, was prescribed Pondimin, a weight loss drug developed and sold by the appellee, Wyeth. 1 Tersig-ni later sued Wyeth, alleging that Pondi-min caused him to develop a dangerous condition known as primary pulmonary hypertension (“PPH”). Th

37 A.3d 549 (2008) 424 N.J. Super. 278 Dora BAILEY and Carol Bailey, w/h, plaintiffs v. WYETH, INC., Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Pfizer, Inc., and Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., Defendants. Loretta DeBoard, Plaintiffs, v. Wyeth, Inc., Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Pfizer, Inc., and Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., Defendants. Bette Kositsky and Mark Kositsky, Plaintiffs v. Wyeth, Inc., Wyeth Pharmaceuticals

(2008) Julie DEMAHY v. WYETH INC., et al. Civil Action No. 08-3616. United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana. October 27, 2008. ORDER & REASONS CARL J. BARBIER, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant Actavis Inc.'s ("Actavis") Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc.19) under Rule 12(b)(6) based on federal conflict preemption. The m

Stein, J. In the course of his employment as a construction laborer, plaintiff was injured while moving a filtration unit weighing in excess of 1,000 pounds within a building owned by defendant Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Plaintiff and a coworker had used two pallet jacks to hoist the unit 8 to 10 inches off the floor in order to move it. With the unit sitting on the pallet jacks, plaintiff pulled and his coworker pushed the u

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge NIEMEYER wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge HILTON joined. Judge MICHAEL wrote a dissenting opinion. OPINION NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge: Relying on the whistleblower protection provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, Mark Livingston commenced this action against his employer Wyeth, Inc., a pharmaceutical company, allegi

GILMAN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which GRIFFIN, J., joined and STRANCH, J., joined in part. STRANCH, J. (pp. 407-15), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. OPINION RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. These seven consolidated cases are among the many that have been filed nationwide against the manufacturers of both the prescription drug Regl

508 F.Supp.2d 430 (2007) BRUESEWITZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WYETH, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 05-5994. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. August 24, 2007. *431 *432 *433 Jim Hart, Williams Bailey Law Firm LLP, John R. Fabry, Williams Kh

Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-27-2009 Bruesewitz v. Wyeth Inc Precedential or Non-Pr

(2008) WYETH, Plaintiff, v. SANDOZ, INC., Defendant. No. 5:07-CV-234-D. United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division. July 3, 2008. ORDER JAMES C. DEVER III, District Judge. In this patent infringement action, plaintiff Wyeth alleges that defendant Sandoz, Inc.'s ("Sandoz") generic extended release venlafaxine product i

561 F.3d 233 (2009) Russell BRUESEWITZ; Robalee Bruesewitz, parents and natural guardians of Hannah Bruesewitz, a minor child and in their own right, Appellants v. WYETH INC. f/k/a Wyeth Laboratories, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Wyeth Lederle, Wyeth Lederle Vaccines, and Lederle Laboratories. No. 07-3794. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued September 11, 2008.<

OPINION Justice SAYLOR.1 This appeal concerns whether, under Pennsylvania products-liability law, a pharmaceutical company is immune from the responsibility to respond in damages for a lack of due care resulting in personal injury or death, except per two discrete grounds, namely, on account of drug impurities or deficient warnings. The designated app

28 A.3d 856 (2008) 422 N.J. Super. 343 Dora BAILEY and Carol Bailey, w/h, Plaintiffs, v. WYETH, INC., Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Pfizer, Inc., and Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., Defendants. Loretta DeBoard, Plaintiffs, v. Wyeth, Inc., Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Pfizer, Inc., and Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., Defendants. Bette Kositsky and Mark Kositsky, w/h, Plaintiffs, v. Wyeth, Inc., Wyeth Pharmace

BERNSTEIN, J, The above captioned cases were tried together before a jury beginning *503on September 28, 2004. Each plaintiff claimed defendant Wyeth failed to respond to a “signal” that Pondimin causes valvular regurgitation. Each plaintiff claimed that as a result of this failure, defendant failed to warn their prescribing physician of this risk, resulting in i

WALSH, J.S.C. Pondimin® and Redux™ are two prescription diet drugs manufactured by defendant, Wyeth (formerly known as American Home Products Corporation). Both drugs were approved by the United States Food & Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of obesity.1 Both Pondimin® and Redux™ are anoretics, causing a *550decrease in one’