§Why CasetextPricing

Graves v. Merck & Co., Inc.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 139 AMENDED MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law.. Document

30 Cited authorities

  1. California v. Arc America Corp.

    490 U.S. 93 (1989)   Cited 498 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Sherman Act, which does not allow indirect purchaser actions, does not preempt state laws that allow indirect purchasers to obtain relief

  2. American Tobacco Co. Inc. v. Grinnell

    951 S.W.2d 420 (Tex. 1997)   Cited 1,111 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Texas law does not recognize claims based on a duty to act to prevent risk once prior conduct is found to be dangerous and noting that such claims "are particularly ill-suited for application to what are essentially products liability claims because they impose liability even when the manufacturer provides adequate warnings"

  3. Denny v. Ford Motor Co.

    87 N.Y.2d 248 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 414 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming distinction, under New York law, between claims based on strict products liability and breach of implied warranty of fitness pursuant to N.Y. U.C.C. § 2–314[c], including being “minimally safe” for the product's “expected purpose”

  4. West v. Caterpillar Tractor Company, Inc.

    336 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1976)   Cited 415 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a manufacturer may be held liable under the theory of strict liability in tort where the manufacturer places a product on the market with a defect that causes an injury but, as a defense, the manufacturer can assert contributory negligence if based upon grounds other than a failure of the user to discover a defect in the product

  5. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.

    248 N.Y. 339 (N.Y. 1928)   Cited 2,023 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that foreseeability is a factor in determining duty and stating that "the orbit of the danger as disclosed to the eye of reasonable vigilance would be the orbit of the duty"

  6. Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp.

    224 Ill. 2d 247 (Ill. 2007)   Cited 155 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence of a substitute product that was available in the same month as the injury is "insufficient to demonstrate that a substitute product was available at the time of the manufacture of the [allegedly defective product]"

  7. Jennings v. BIC Corp.

    181 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 1999)   Cited 105 times
    Holding that the court's failure to give a damages instruction was harmless where the defendant was found not liable

  8. O'Brien v. Muskin Corp.

    94 N.J. 169 (N.J. 1983)   Cited 121 times
    Rejecting the "hypothesis" that "manufacturers, merely by placing warnings on their [defectively designed] products, could insulate themselves from liability regardless of the number of people those products maim or kill"

  9. Hoffmann-La Roche v. Mason

    27 So. 3d 75 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Mason, 27 So. 3d at 77, the plaintiff argued that "the warning label was inadequate to warn physicians that" Accutane, the prescription drug, could lead to the plaintiff developing inflammatory bowel disease ("IBD").

  10. City of N.Y. v. Golden Feather Smoke Shop

    597 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2010)   Cited 43 times
    Recognizing the "well-established rule that agencies need not prove irreparable injury . . . as required in private litigation suits"

  11. Rule 50 - Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 50   Cited 13,601 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Allowing "renewed motion"

  12. Section 768.1256 - Government rules defense

    Fla. Stat. § 768.1256   Cited 25 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (1) In a product liability action brought against a manufacturer or seller for harm allegedly caused by a product, there is a rebuttable presumption that the product is not defective or unreasonably dangerous and the manufacturer or seller is not liable if, at the time the specific unit of the product was sold or delivered to the initial purchaser or user, the aspect of the product that allegedly caused the harm: (a) Complied with federal or state codes, statutes, rules, regulations, or standards

  13. Section 768.1257 - State-of-the-art defense for products liability

    Fla. Stat. § 768.1257   Cited 14 times   3 Legal Analyses

    In an action based upon defective design, brought against the manufacturer of a product, the finder of fact shall consider the state of the art of scientific and technical knowledge and other circumstances that existed at the time of manufacture, not at the time of loss or injury. Fla. Stat. § 768.1257 s.14, ch. 99-225.