The Louisiana Supreme Court’s Alarming U-turn
The Pelican State deserves a judicial system that stands firmly on principles — not one swayed by the most recent political winds.
Cerveny v. Aventis
(10th Cir., filed September 19, 2016): Arguing that courts must ask whether federal law authorized the defendant to do what the plaintiff claims state law required when assessing conflict preemption. Also argues that federal law authorizes a drug manufacturer to change its FDA-approved label only in limited circumstances.
On May 2, 2017, the Court ruled in favor of ATRA’s position and affirmed the lower court’s decision granting summary judgment. The Court held that the FDA’s rejection of a citizen petition containing arguments virtually identical to the plaintiffs’ constitutes “clear evidence” that the FDA would not have approved plaintiffs’ proposed warning.
Latest News
View all news
Trial Lawyers’ Latest Target: Life-Sustaining Baby Formula
Judges must recognize these cases for what they are: a cynical attempt to turn the suffering of families into a litigation jackpot.
Wall Street Journal: Junk Science Sometimes Still Prevails in Court
A recent Delaware case shows that not all states follow the Supreme Court’s 1993 Daubert ruling.
ATRA Applauds Utah AG Candidate Rudy Bautista for Signing Transparency Pledge
Republican Candidate Derek Brown Urged to Sign Pledge
Baltimore’s Opioid Lawsuit Is Wrong Approach to Overdose Crisis
Maryland taxpayers should be assured that state leadership is working in their best interests and not those of entrepreneurial trial lawyers.
ATRA Sounds Alarm on Colorado’s ‘Lawsuit Inferno’ in New Report
ATRA Declares State a ‘Lawsuit Inferno’ Amid Liability Onslaught