Court cases decisions

Table 2-4 shows that the brand-name company prevailed in litigation for 11 drug products. Of the 4 cases in which the generic applicant appealed the district court s decision of infringement, the Federal Circuit affirmed all 4 of these district court decisions of infringement. 

Congress and the Executive Branch can also use the Supreme Court s decisions about the admission of expert testimony in courts as a starting point for establishing standards for consideration of experts and their opinions. In the 1993 Daubert Case, 17 the U.S. Supreme Court set down some guidelines for courts to use to decide whether an expert and his or her testimony is ad-... 

Retirees respond well to lectures, forums, and articles that discuss how to avoid probate. They seem interested in any technique that will help them beat the system. The more you can learn about legal ways to accomplish this, the better. One area to pay particular attention to—political debates about estate tax. A major decision is to find the right professional to help you. This person should know current federal and state estate-tax laws as well as recent applicable court cases. The right... 

Ironically, although the plaintiff avoided paying his own attorney s fees by representing himself, the CAFC upheld the District Court s decision requiring him to pay the defendant s litigation costs (approximately 6 million). For another round of this case, see Nilssen et al. v. Osram Sylvania, et al. No. 2007-1198, 1348 Slip. Op. (CAFC, June 17, 2008). 

In June 1988 the tobacco industry lost its first court case involving liability in the death of a smoker after heavy, chronic cigarette use. Although the decision was subsequently reversed in 1990, it represents a significant application of tort law. The question of addiction liability was the core of a landmark class action case against the tobacco industry in federal court in New Orleans (Castano v. The American Tobacco Co.). (This case was settled as part of the general settlement see later discussion). 

The very critical view, at least theoretically, taken by courts of witness and party testimony is based on the understanding of human nature gained in the course of centuries by many jurists. It should be accepted as a valid guideline by historians as well, even if the methods used to determine truth in scientific pursuits are necessarily different than those employed in court. For example, while a Court must reach an absolute decision regarding what is true and what is false, and must do so within a limited period of time, science cannot, indeed may not reach a conclusive and final verdict if it wants to remain true to its maxim of openness in every respect. Whereas in a court case the close relation of the proceedings to a human fate causes emotion to exert a strong and distorting influence on the process by which the verdict is reached, this influence usually is, or should be, minor in scientific pursuits. 

The decisive prerequisite for these conditions is the worldwide climate of persecution and defamation to which anyone and everyone is subjected who may possibly have been in any way connected with alleged National Socialist crimes or who is suspected of doubting the truth of these. The allegedly unprecedented nature of these crimes induces an unparalleled moral blindness in Nazi-hunters and in the guardians of the fundamental anti-Fascist consensus that prevails in politics, in the media and even among the broad masses, which suspends the rules of common sense and justice guided by the rule of law, so that the corresponding court cases call the medieval witch trials vividly to mind. 

This issue has been addressed in court cases over the years. In one case seven Boston State Hospital patients filed suit to stop the (nonemergency) administration of medications without their informed consent. Belatedly, the patients claimed the right to refuse medication. The psychiatrists faced a dilemma. On the one hand, they knew by experience that certain drugs were able to significantly relieve emotional distress. On the other hand, some of these drugs had unpleasant side effects euid patients understandably might want to avoid these. The court decided in favor of the patients. It ruled that patients (whether voluntarily or involuntarily admitted to the hospital) should be presumed competent to accept or refuse psychotherapeutic medications. The court added that when a patient was not deemed competent, the decision whether to use medications needed to be made by a court-appointed guardian. 

While scientific advances are being made, political influences are also important. This can be seen in some cases such as the court-forced incorporation of the nonlinear method for EPA s assessment of chloroform instead of the linear extrapolation method. This brings to mind the importance of evaluation of carcinogenesis mechanisms by scientists rather then being settled in the courts. International decisions and deliberations are also affecting regulation of carcinogens (or at least the debate about them) in the United States. An example is the precautionary principle, which is often applied in the context of the impact of human actions on human health and the environment, in which the consequence of actions... 

There is no statutory prohibition, in any of the current Federal health and safety laws, in making daily regulatory decisions utilizing quantitative safety/risk assessment based upon extrapolation from animal toxicity studies. Indeed, the court cases already discussed, from 1914 to the present, lead inexorably to this approach. 

Comparing the majority decision and the dissenting opinions on a Supreme Court case... 

An important aspect of job-seeking is that unemployed persons need only accept and search for work that can be reasonably expected of them ( 119(5) no. 1, 121 SGB III). The extent of this restriction on the seeking of reasonable work is largely influenced by the courts, which interpret it on the basis of individual case decisions. 

One disturbing aspect of the court s decision was the failure of the nine justices to articulate any clear principles to guide agencies in future cases involving toxic chemicals. Justice Rehnquist exemplified the reluctance of some judges to review the technical... 

Most legal experts feel that the Supreme Court decision does not prevent patients in states with medical marijuana laws from growing their own marijuana at home. But not all patients are able to do that, and they no longer have a source in the buyers clubs. Since almost all arrests for use and possession of marijuana are done by state and local officials, the federal government is expected to confine enforcement efforts to shutting down medical marijuana distribution centers like the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, which triggered the Supreme Court case. 

The third, and most difficult, criterion is unobviousness, or inventive step. The process for deciding whether or not an invention is obvious was succinctly stated in the Deere case. According to the Court s decision, the Patent Examiner should ... 

It is not fixed, except by the doctrine of precedent. This requires a lower court to follow a previous judgment of a higher court. The decisions that make up common law include those made in respect of statute law (made by Parliament) on a particular set of facts. Statute law remains superior to common law. If both statute and common law apply in a case, but appear... 

---