§Why CasetextPricing

H. (T.) v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION

Respondent’s Petition for Review

65 Cited authorities

  1. Wyeth v. Levine

    555 U.S. 555 (2009)   Cited 1,429 times   101 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the FDA's drug labeling judgments pursuant to the FDCA did not obstacle preempt state law products liability claims

  2. Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing

    564 U.S. 604 (2011)   Cited 744 times   143 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state tort law that required generic drug manufacturers to provide adequate warning labels was preempted where federal law required manufacturers to use the same labels as their brand-name counterparts

  3. Schifando v. City of Los Angeles

    31 Cal.4th 1074 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 1,255 times
    Denying request where the materials sought to be judicially noticed were not particularly supportive of the respondent's cause or relevant to the action and noting that "[n]o party has alleged" what the amicus curiae had purported to respond to

  4. Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist.

    42 Cal.4th 201 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 661 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[b]efore suing a public entity, the plaintiff must present a timely written claim for damages to the entity"

  5. Small v. Fritz Cos., Inc.

    30 Cal.4th 167 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 629 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that complaint for negligent misrepresentation in a holder action must be "pled with the same specificity required in a holder's action for fraud."

  6. Erlich v. Menezes

    21 Cal.4th 543 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 463 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant may not be liable for negligent breach of contract

  7. Moore v. Regents of University of California

    51 Cal.3d 120 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 608 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in obtaining a patient's consent to a procedure, "a physician must disclose personal interests unrelated to the patient's health, whether research or economic, that may affect the physician's professional judgment"

  8. Rowland v. Christian

    69 Cal.2d 108 (Cal. 1968)   Cited 1,244 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Section 1714 superceded prior common-law negligence rules

  9. Bily v. Arthur Young & Co.

    3 Cal.4th 370 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 543 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an accountant is liable for negligent misrepresentation to a third party only if he knowingly supplies the information for the benefit of the third party, and the information is relied on by the third party in a transaction previously identified to the accountant, or a substantially similar transaction

  10. Schrock v. Wyeth, Inc.

    727 F.3d 1273 (10th Cir. 2013)   Cited 255 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding similar argument waived

  11. Section 355 - New drugs

    21 U.S.C. § 355   Cited 2,241 times   334 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to change the date on which an ANDA may be approved if "either party to the action failed to reasonably cooperate in expediting the action"

  12. Section 6-5-530 - Liability for damages

    Ala. Code § 6-5-530   Cited 15 times

    (a) In any civil action for personal injury, death, or property damage caused by a product, regardless of the type of claims alleged or the theory of liability asserted, the plaintiff must prove, among other elements, that the defendant designed, manufactured, sold, or leased the particular product the use of which is alleged to have caused the injury on which the claim is based, and not a similar or equivalent product. Designers, manufacturers, sellers, or lessors of products not identified as having

  13. Section 314.70 - Supplements and other changes to an approved NDA

    21 C.F.R. § 314.70   Cited 353 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Defining "major changes" as those "requiring supplement submission and approval prior to distribution of the product"

  14. Section 201.57 - Specific requirements on content and format of labeling for human prescription drug and biological products described in Section 201.56(b)(1)

    21 C.F.R. § 201.57   Cited 252 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Listing requirements for different subsections for indications, dosage, and clinical studies

  15. Section 314.80 - Postmarketing reporting of adverse drug experiences

    21 C.F.R. § 314.80   Cited 113 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Requiring report of “serious and unexpected” adverse event within 15 days

  16. Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1115   Cited 73,834 times

    (a) Unpublished opinion Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action. (b)Exceptions An unpublished opinion may be cited or relied on: (1) When the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or (2) When the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary

  17. Rule 8.1105 - Publication of appellate opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1105   Cited 2,085 times

    (a)Supreme Court All opinions of the Supreme Court are published in the Official Reports. (b)Courts of Appeal and appellate divisions Except as provided in (e), an opinion of a Court of Appeal or a superior court appellate division is published in the Official Reports if a majority of the rendering court certifies the opinion for publication before the decision is final in that court. (Subd (b) amended effective July 23, 2008; adopted effective April 1, 2007.) (c)Standards for certification An opinion

  18. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer