Web Results

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that decided that redistricting issues present justiciable questions, thus enabling federal courts to intervene in and to decide redistricting cases. The defendants unsuccessfully argued that redistricting of legislative districts is a " political ...

www.faegrebd.com/supreme-court-decides-bruesewitz-v-wyeth-llc

Feb 22, 2011 ... On February 22, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC , No. 09-152, holding that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 preempts all design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers in which the plaintiff seeks compensation for injury or death caused by a vaccine's ...

caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-supreme-court/1655620.html

Jan 21, 2014 ... Lance v. Wyeth, Inc., Nov. Term 2006, No. 0926, slip op. at 5 (C.P.Phila.Jan.7, 2010) (quoting Leibowitz v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 224 Pa.Super. 418, 433 –34, 307 A.2d 449, 458 (1973) (en banc affirmance by an equally divided court) ( quoting, in turn, Lewis v. Baker, 413 P.2d 400, 404 (Or.1966))).

landmarkcases.c-span.org/Case/10/Baker-V-Carr

Baker v. Carr (1962) established the right of federal courts to review redistricting issues, which had previously been termed "political questions" outside the courts' jurisdiction. The Court's willingness to address legislative reapportionment in this Tennessee case paved the way for the “one man, one vote” standard of ...

www.druganddevicelawblog.com/2013/07/fda-device-clearance-clearly-relevan.html

Jul 5, 2013 ... Wyeth, 71 Pa. D. & C.4th 225, 228 (Pa. C.P. 2005) (quoting and following Southard); Baker v. Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc., 1999 WL 811334, at *19 (Tex . Dist. June 7, 1999) (“improper FDA clearance, or even no clearance at all, does not necessarily demonstrate that a [product] is unsafe or ineffective”), ...

law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/666/1483/2150760

Graham v. Wyeth Laboratories, 666 F. Supp. 1483 (D. Kan. 1987) case opinion from the US District Court for the District of Kansas. ... Michaud, Hutton & Michaud , Wichita, Kan., for plaintiff. Albert J. Knopp, Baker & Hostetler, Cleveland, Ohio, Alvin D. Herrington, Wichita, Kan., Hedy M. Powell, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

www.almcms.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/292/2017/07/Consolidated-Trials-mesh-2-Boston-Sci-opening-brief.pdf

Eghnayem v. Boston Scientific Corp. Case No. 16-11818-H. C-1 of 3. CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS. Counsel for Appellant Boston Scientific Corporation certifies that the following persons and entities have or may have an interest in the outcome of this case: Adams, Robert T. – counsel for Appellant/Defendant.

www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript.aspx

Oral Argument, Date Argued. 16-6795 Manuel Ayestas v. Davis, 10/30/17. 16- 6855 Wilson v. Sellers, 10/30/17. 15-1509 U. S. Bank Nat. Assn. v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 10/31/17. 16-460 Artis v. District of Columbia, 11/01/17. 16-784 Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. 11/06/17. 16-498 Patchak v.

www.rumberger.com/90F6E0/assets/files/lawarticles/Federal%20Preemption%20after%20Wyeth.pdf

v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008), among doz- ens of preemption cases decided since 1990. In these preemption decisions, judicial philosophies have blurred. Traditionally conservative judges may join those more liberally inclined, under modern defini- tions, to decide against preemption. Preceding the Court's decision in ...