Tucker v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 701 F.Supp.2d 1040 (S.D.Ind.2010)

N/A

OUTCOME:

Denying defendant’s learned intermediary defense and further allowing plaintiffs’ experts to testify regarding the causal association between antidepressants and increased suicidal behavior

Forst v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 639 F.Supp.2d 948 (E.D.Wis.,2009)

N/A

OUTCOME:

Holding that plaintiffs' claims are not preempted by federal law

Forst v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 602 F.Supp.2d 960 (E.D.Wis. 2009)

N/A

OUTCOME:

Holding that Wisconsin has not adopted the learned intermediary doctrine and allowing all of plaintiffs’ claims, including, negligence, fraud and punitive damages to proceed to the jury.

Cunningham v. SmithKline Beecham, 255 F.R.D. 474 (N.D.Ind. 2009)

N/A

OUTCOME:

Ordering defendant to produce documents and awarding sanctions.

Knipe v. SmithKline Beecham, 583 F.Supp.2d 602 (E.D.Pa. 2008)

N/A

OUTCOME:

Holding that a drug manufacturer owes a duty to warn regarding risks associated with off-label uses and allowing plaintiffs’ claims for compensatory and punitive damages to proceed to the jury.

Knipe v.SmithKline Beecham, 583 F.Supp.2d 553 (E.D.Pa 2008)

N/A

OUTCOME:

Holding that plaintiffs’ claims are not preempted by federal law.

Tucker v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 596 F.Supp.2d 1225 (S.D.Ind. 2008)

N/A

OUTCOME:

Granting plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and holding that plaintiff’s claims are not preempted by federal law.

Grisham v. Philip Morris USA 482 F. 3d 1131 (9th Cir., 2007)

N/A

OUTCOME:

Grisham v. Philip Morris USA 40 Cal.4th 623, 151 P.3d 1151, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 735 (2007)

N/A

OUTCOME:

Tucker v. GlaxoSmithKline 2006 WL 753128 (S.D. Ind., 2006)

N/A

OUTCOME: