January 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

« Thanks for coming! | Main | Oral argument set in attorney advertising case: Simpson Strong-Tie v. Gore »

Monday, March 08, 2010



Pfizer, perhaps?

Kimberly A. Kralowec

Yes, that would be good, but if they're going to take up a case, Weinstat and Steroids have better facts.

For the record, I think the outcome of those two cases was correct and consistent with Tobacco II, whereas Cohen and Pfizer cannot be reconciled with it. It's very difficult to read the tea leaves and figure out why the Supreme Court would pass on one case and (perhaps) take up a different one later.

If you remember a couple of years ago, both Pfizer and Tobacco II had review petitions pending, and the Court expedited the latter case in order to grant review in it before the time expired in Pfizer and make Tobacco II the lead case. This was my blog post from October 2006 on that development.

And going back to this 2006 post reminds me that Justices Chin and Corrigan are disqualified in Pfizer. That could be a reason why, if they take up a case, it might not be that one.

The comments to this entry are closed.

2023 Supreme Court Calendar



  • Nothing in this blog constitutes legal advice or a solicitation for business. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney in your jurisdiction. To read this blog's complete disclaimer, click here.

  • The UCL Practitioner
    © 2003-2022
    by Kimberly A. Kralowec
    All rights reserved.

  • Header design by Webmotion
    Photos by Jack Gescheidt
    Powered by TypePad

  • StatCounter