Cases

443 F.Supp.2d 994 (2006) Susan BROOKS, Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC., and Walgreen Co., Defendants. Civil No. 06-371-GPM. United States District Court, S.D. Illinois. July 31, 2006. *995 *996 John J. Driscoll, Brown & Crouppen, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff. Dan H. Ball, Robert

405 F.Supp.2d 800 (2005) Raymond G. CORDLE, Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC., et al. Defendants. No. CIV.A.0:05-191-JMH. United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Ashland. December 22, 2005. Ann B. Oldfather, Oldfather & Morris, Beverly J. Glascock, Bubalo & Hiestand, PLC, D. Brian Rattliff, Bubalo & Hiestand, PLC, Gregory J. Bubalo, Bubalo & H

129 F.Supp.2d 765 (2001) Patrick VOLITIS, Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC., Defendant. No. CIV.A. 98-5466. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. January 22, 2001. *766 Theodore Q. Thompson, Ambler, PA, for Plaintiff. Michael S. Burkhardt, Paul M. Secunda, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, PA, for Def

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER JOHN F. KEENAN, District Judge: Plaintiffs are Virginia residents who brought suit against Defendant Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation (“Merck”) for alleged jaw injuries caused by Merck’s prescription osteoporosis drug Fosamax. Merck moves for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure claiming that Plaintiffs’

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AUDREY G. FLEISSIG, District Judge. This putative class action is before the Court on Defendants’ motion (Doc. No. 15) to dismiss Plaintiffs first amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and alternatively, on federal preemption grounds. The Court heard oral argument on the motion o

PER CURIAM. In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant seeks review of an order denying a claim for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits, attorney’s fees, and costs. We reverse because the Judge of Compen*883sation Claims (JCC) used an incorrect legal standard in denying PTD benefits. The JCC denied the claim based on the erroneous assumption

386 F.Supp.2d 501 (2005) AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC., Defendant, v. A.I. Marine Adjusters, Counterclaim Defendant. No. 03 Civ. 3850 VMJCK. United States District Court, S.D. New York. September 9, 2005. *502 *503 *5

OPINION THOMAS, Circuit Judge: Erin and Shawn Holmes appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Merck & Company in their diversity action alleging wrongful death. They contend that the district court erred in applying the standards of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (Vaccine Act or the Act), 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-22, to

434 F.Supp.2d 257 (2006) MERCK & CO., INC. and MSD Technology, L.P., Plaintiffs, v. MEDIPLAN HEALTH CONSULTING, INC., d/b/a rxnorth.com, Defendant. And Related Cases. Nos. 05 Civ. 3650(DC), 05 Civ. 3696(DC), 05 Civ. 3698(DC), 05 Civ. 3699(DC), 05 Civ. 3700(DC), 05 Civ. 3701(DC). United States District Court, S.D. New York. June 14, 2006.

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 598 Norbert Y. Thompson and Helen P. Thompson (hereinafter together referred to as "the plaintiffs") sued Garry Gardner ("Gardner"), Garry Gardner d/b/a Gardner Brothers Home Builders, Inc., Dryvit Systems, Inc., Apache Products, and USX Corporation, asserting claims of breach of express warranty, breach of impl

228 F.Supp.2d 480 (2002) MERCK & CO., INC., Plaintiff, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. and ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendants. No. CIV.A.00-035-JJF. No. CIV.A.00-052-JJF. United States District Court, D. Delaware. November 4, 2002. *481 *482 Mary B. Graham and Maryellen No

868 F.Supp. 230 (1994) Birgit G. HEIN, Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC., Defendant. No. 3-93-0541. United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division. November 22, 1994. Gustavus Adolphus Wood, III, Jim Omer & Associates, Nashville, TN, for plaintiff. Gary A. Brewer, Parks T. Chastain, Brewer, Krause & Brooks, Nashville, TN, for defen

W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: The Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), Pub.L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005), authorizes the removal to federal court of “mass actions.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(ll)(A), (B). “Mass actions” are civil actions in which “monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs’ claims involve common ques

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DANNY C. REEVES, District Judge. This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation’s (“Merck”) motion for *806a preliminary injunction. [Record No. 2] Merck asserts that Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway (the “AG” or “Kentucky AG”) violated its right to due process wh

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. *4 Our disposition of the merits of this appeal turns on a single question: Can manufacturers of prescription eye drops change the medication's bottle so as to alter the amount of medication dispensed into the eye without first getting the FDA's approval? Finding that fed

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DANNY C. REEVES, District Judge. This matter is pending for consideration of motions for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation (“Merck”) and Defendant Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway (“AG”). [Record Nos. 64, 65] Both parties contend that there are no genuine issues of material fact. And each asserts that it/he is entitled to judgment as a m

OPINION OF THE COURT FUENTES, Circuit Judge. This appeal challenges the grant of summary judgment to one defendant, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. (“Tenneco”), in an action seeking contribution toward environmental cleanup costs. These costs have been or will be incurred by plaintiff-appellant 1 Mor

*1298MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MORAN, Chief Judge. Plaintiff Darken Thompson (“Thompson”) brings this action challenging the decision of defendant Louis W. Sullivan (“Secretary”) denying her application for social security disability benefits under the Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) program of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq.

22 F.Supp.2d 447 (1998) MERCK-MEDCO MANAGED CARE, INC. v. RITE AID CORPORATION, et al. No. Civ. L-96-499. United States District Court, D. Maryland. August 13, 1998. *448 *449 James P. Tallon, Andrew W. Feinberg, and Daniel D. Edelman, of New York City, and Scott Patrick Burns, and John B. Isb

106 F.Supp.2d 737 (2000) MORTON INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED v. A.E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al. Velsicol Chemical Corporation, et al. v. A.E. Staley Manufacturing Company, et al. Nos. 96-3609 KSH, 96-3610 KSH. United States District Court, D. New Jersey. July 19, 2000. *738 *739<