We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance

Results:1-10 of 102

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals holds that Arizona state law failure-to-warn product liability claims involving a medical device was not pre-empted by the Medical Control Device Amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • USA
  • January 23 2013

On January 10, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that amendments to a federal statute did not preempt Arizona state law failure-to-warn

Because Arizona's "fundamental policy" regarding non-compete clauses is so different from that of the state of Washington, Arizona Federal Court refuses to enforce clause's provision calling for applicability of Washington state law
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • November 12 2011

Courts around the country are split as to the circumstances under which the parties’ choice of law set forth in a non-compete agreement will be honored.

Defect allegations insufficient in drug case
  • Dechert LLP
  • USA
  • October 17 2011

We may be accustomed to talking about whether a product was "defective" and, as counsel for defendant sellers, working hard to show that the product contained no "defect."

Twiqbal, and Moore
  • Dechert LLP
  • USA
  • October 14 2011

We found the decision in Mills v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 2011 WL 4708850 (D. Ariz. Oct. 7, 2011), interesting for at least three reasons.