Skip to main content

Are you a legal professional? Visit our professional site

Search for legal issues
For help near (city, ZIP code or county)
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location

Drug Product Liability Case, and Criminal and Tort Matters

Article Placeholder Image
By FindLaw Staff on August 11, 2010 11:04 AM

In re: Baycol Prods. Litig., No. 09-1964, involved a product liability action.  The district court reversed the district court's denial of appellants' motion to substitute as plaintiffs for their deceased mother, holding that the district court erred in relying upon a California procedural statute when it declared that appellants were not proper parties, rather than relying on Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1).

US v. Sanchez, No. 09-2996, concerned a prosecution for assault with a dangerous weapon within Indian country and assault resulting in serious bodily injury.  The court reversed the grant of defendant's motion to suppress, holding that 1) there was no evidence in the record that officers threatened to charge defendant with attempted murder or other crimes if he refused to speak with them or confess; 2) the interrogation at issue was relatively brief; and 3) defendant demonstrated his ability to resist pressure to confess at the beginning of the interview.

In US v. Schiradelly, No. 09-3306, the court affirmed defendant's sentence for larceny and assault, on the grounds that 1) it was clear that the plea agreement's sentencing recommendation was merely a recommendation; 2) because the sentencing recommendation in defendant's agreement remained non-binding under Rule 11(c)(1)(B), the district court did not violate the plea agreement; and 3) there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to depart upward 3 levels based on the circumstances of the offense and the dismissed charges.

Khoury v. Philips Med. Systems, No. 09-3276, involved a product liability action based on injuries sustained by plaintiff-doctor in using defendant's medical equipment.  The court affirmed summary judgment for defendant on the grounds that 1) an expert's testimony was essential to plaintiff's ability to prove his claim; and 2) plaintiff was required, as a proponent of expert testimony, to prove, among other things, that the expert was qualified and his opinion is reliable.

Related Resources

Find a Lawyer

More Options