In the Courts

Text Size

In the Courts 

AAJ is always fighting on behalf of injured Americans, whether it is in the halls of Congress or in the state and federal courts.

Secrecy in the Courts

Shhh...Corporations Hide Behind Secrecy Agreements:
Negligent corporations that produce dangerous and hazardous products use court secrecy agreements to avoid accountability and hide potential public safety issues.

Fixing Iqbal: Restoring Americans' Access To Justice

Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009) and Bell Atlantic v. Twombly (2007) – overturned over 50 years of precedent, upending the legal landscape to favor corporations by raising the bar for an individual to seek recourse.

Complete Immunity Preemption

The U.S. Supreme Court has heard several cases in the past few years dealing with federal preemption — whether federal safety regulations preempt state tort claims.  AAJ has fought against federal preemption in order to ensure individual rights are protected and that manufacturers can be held accountable for their defective products.

The Facts— Complete Immunity Preemption 

AAJ's Report: Get Out of Jail Free

 

Pliva v. Mensing

 

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday, March 30th in Pliva v. Mensing, a case involving the right to hold a generic drug manufacturer accountable for injuries when the warning label followed the brand-name’s FDA-approved label. Gladys Mensing developed tardive dyskinesia, a severe neurological movement disorder, after taking metoclopramide, the generic version of Reglan, used to treat acid reflux. 

Pliva v. Mensing was decided on June 23, 2011, in a 5-4 opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas.

The Facts—Generic Drug Immunity Post-Mensing

AAJ's statement on the decision

The Facts—Pliva v. Mensing

The Facts—Generic Drug Industry

Brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Gladys Mensing

Brief filed by 43 state attorneys general on behalf of Gladys Mensing

 

 


Wal-Mart Stores v. DukesThe U. S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday, March 29th in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, a case examining the size of a class action lawsuit. Betty Dukes along with hundreds of thousands of other female employees accuse Wal-Mart of a pattern of pay and promotion discrimination across their stores. Wal-Mart claims they must sue individually, and not under a class action. 

Wal-Mart v. Dukes was decided on June 20, 2011, in a 5-4 opinion by Justice Scalia.

AAJ's statement on the decision

AAJ's amicus brief, filed by the Center for Constitutional Litigation


CSX Transportation v. McBrideThe U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Monday, March 28th on CSX Transportation v. McBride, a case that looks at the burden of proof necessary to be compensated for injuries sustained while working on railroads.

CSX Transportation v. McBride was decided on June 23, 2011, in a 5-4 opinion by Justice Ginsburg.

AAJ's amicus brief, filed by the Center for Constitutional Litigation


Past U.S. Supreme Court DecisionsBruesewitz v. Wyeth (2/22/11)
AAJ’s amicus brief

Wyeth v. Levine (3/4/09)
AAJ’s amicus brief

Riegel v. Medtronic (2/20/08)
AAJ’s amicus brief


State CasesWest Virginia challenge to malpractice caps: MacDonald v. City Hospital (6/22/11)

Kansas Supreme Court upheld arbitrary caps on non-economic damages in medical negligence cases: Miller v. Johnson (10/5/12)

Illinois decision striking down caps on damages as unconstitutional: LeBron vs. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital (2/4/10)

 


The American Association for Justice
777 6th Street, NW, Ste 200 • Washington, DC  20001 • 800.424.2725 or 202.965.3500

© 2014 AAJ