Christopher v. Johnson & Johnson
| Docket Number | 16-11051,16-11052,16-11053,16-11054,16-11056,17-10030,17-10031,17-10032,17-10034,17-10035 |
| Decision Date | 25 April 2018 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
169 cases
-
In re Takata Airbag Prods. Liab. Litig.
...stream of commerce cases, but each is distinguishable. For instance, Plaintiffs cite In re DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant Prod. Liab. Litig. , 888 F.3d 753, 780 (5th Cir. 2018) for the proposition that it "cannot be ... nonmanufacturing parents categorically lie beyond the s......
-
Taupier v. Davol, Inc.
...rejecting a categorical bar and, instead, favoring a product-by-product analysis. See In re DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant Prod. Liab. Litig., 888 F.3d 753, 772 (5th Cir. 2018) ; Burningham v. Wright Med. Grp., Inc. , Case No. 2:17-CV-92, 2018 WL 922362, at *4 (D. Utah Feb. ......
-
Slyce Acquisition Inc. v. Syte - Visual Conception Ltd.
...theory. See, e.g. , Plixer Int'l, Inc. v. Scrutinizer GmbH , 905 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2018) ; In re DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant Prod. Litig. , 888 F.3d 753, 778–81 (5th Cir. 2018) ; see also Shuker v. Smith & Nephew , PLC, 885 F.3d 760, 780 (3d Cir. 2018) (approving of Jus......
-
Burns v. Nielsen
...verdict was against the weight of the evidence," or "the damages awarded were excessive." In re DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant Prod. Liab. Litig. , 888 F.3d 753, 784 (5th Cir. 2018) (brackets, internal quotes, and citation omitted). "A motion for a new trial should not be gr......
Get Started for Free
5 firm's commentaries
-
Federal Court Holds That Texas Does Not Have An Independent Aiding And Abetting Claim For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty But Holds That There Is A Knowing Participation Claim And Also Addresses A Claim Against An Auditor For Assisting In Breaches Of Fiduciary Duty
...its legitimacy in fashioning novel causes of action not yet recognized by state courts.” In re DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant Prod. Liab. Litig., 888 F.3d 753, 782, 781 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing Johnson v. Sawyer, 47 F.3d 716, 729 (5th Cir. 1995)). Taylor’s contention that DeP......
-
Shut the Door on Punitive Damages “Experts”
...awarded $60 million in punitives. Aoki v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 2016 WL 10828742, at *1 (N.D. Tex. July 5, 2016), reversed, 888 F.3d 753 (5th Cir. 2018) (awarding new trial for reasons unrelated to punitive damages). That award was illegal under Texas law, which capped punitive damages.......
-
Size Matters
...and ten figure verdicts – the only one actually appealed to decision being reversed. In re DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, 888 F.3d 753 (5th Cir. 2018). Another Fifth Circuit decision, on mandamus, characterized some of the MDL judge’s procedura......
-
Unsound, Ongoing MDL Choice of Law Fiasco
...on the issue but note that reassignment is both extraordinary and rarely invoked. In re DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, 888 F.3d 753, 792 n.83 (5th Cir. 2018) (citations and quotation marks omitted). In these five cases, we have an MDL transfere......
Get Started for Free
2 books & journal articles
-
Witness
...by volitionally placing his head inside bow, was just as likely as the expert’s involuntary causation theory. In re DuPuy Orthopedics , 888 F.3d 753, 784-85 (5th Cir. 2018). Evidence that one of medical device manufacturer’s parent corporation’s 265 other non-party subsidiaries paid bribes ......
-
Protecting Informed Physician Choice Among Medical Device Alternatives
...where doctor testified that different warning would not have changed his decision to implant the device); (In re DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 888 F.3d 753, 775 (5th Cir. 2018) (testimony of treating physician must show that different warning would have changed prescribing decision); Higgins v.......
