Home | Publish your case | Other publications

Volume 26, No. 8
October 2007

Court Documents

Documents can be downloaded from the Exchange. For security reasons, the AAJ Exchange and its products are available only to AAJ Regular, Life, Sustaining, and President’s Club members.

Documents $50

• Barnett v. Merck & Co., p. 157 (the court’s order and reasons for denying a new trial if plaintiff accepts remittitur in this lawsuit by a former Vioxx user alleging failure to warn of the drug’s cardiovascular risks). No. PL1086.

• Guzman v. Gen. Motors. Corp., p. 164 (the Florida highway patrol incident report and photos of the subject vehicle in this case alleging a minivan lacked adequate roof strength). No. PL1087.
  

• James v. Cincinnati Inc., p. 171 (plaintiff’s appellate brief in this case holding, among other things, that an expert’s failure to test a proposed alternative design did not render his testimony inadmissible where the design was listed as an option in the product literature and was subsequently incorporated into the product at issue). No. PL1088.
  
• St. ex rel. Johnson & Johnson Corp. v. Karl, p. 157 (plaintiffs’ appellate brief in this case in which the Supreme Court of West Virginia rejected the learned intermediary doctrine). No. PL1089.

Document Sets $95

• Brown v. DePuy Spine, Inc., p. 161 (plaintiffs’ memoranda in opposition to summary judgment in a case holding that federal law does not preempt state law claims against the manufacturer of an artificial spinal disk). No. PL1090.

• Hyatt v. Toys “R” Us, Inc., p. 162 (plaintiff’s appellate and reply briefs in a case holding that a jury’s findings that
  a retailer was not negligent in assembling a bicycle but had breached the warranty of merchantability were not fatally inconsistent). No. PL1091.

• McDarby v. Merck & Co., p. 170 (the court’s order in this Vioxx case denying defendant's motions for new trial or remitttur and awarding interest, fees, and costs; an order regarding payment of interest; and the court’s earlier decision finding that plaintiffs' claims were not preempted by federal law, concluding that the heeding presumption was not overcome, and rejecting various evidentiary challenges by defendant). No. PL1092.