stronger claim in California

2024(Carmichael, supra, 17 Cal.App.3d at p. 989 .) The causation analysis should therefore begin by determining what, if anything, the patient’s physician would have communicated to the patient regarding the relative risks and benefits of the prescription drug or medical device in response to a stronger warning, and should then turn to whether an objectively prudent person in the patient’s position would have declined the treatment even where the evidence shows that the physician’s treatment recommendation would have been unchanged by the stronger warning.

2024(See Brown, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 1061 .) The causation analysis must accordingly consider whether an objectively prudent person in the patient’s position would have declined the treatment even where his or her physician would have advised the patient that the treatment would still be in the patient’s best interests, notwithstanding the risks conveyed by a stronger warning.

2024(See, e.g., Munoz v. American Medical Systems, Inc. (C.D.Cal., Mar. 30, 2021, No. 220CV01640ODWJPRX) 2021 WL 1200038 , p. *4; Carnes v. Eli Lilly and Co. (D.S.C., Dec. 16, 2013, No. CA 0:13-591-CMC) 2013 WL 6622915 , p. *5; Allain v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (N.D.Ala., Jan. 14, 2015, No. 2:14-CV- 00280-KOB) 2015 WL 178038 , p. *6.) The court in Garrison v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (M.D.Ala. 2014) 30 F.Supp.3d 1325 , for example, concluded without further elaboration that the physician’s testimony that he would have passed a stronger warning along to the patient was irrelevant because

2024(See, e.g., Munoz v. American Medical Systems, Inc. (C.D.Cal., Mar. 30, 2021, No. 220CV01640ODWJPRX) 2021 WL 1200038 , p. *4; Carnes v. Eli Lilly and Co. (D.S.C., Dec. 16, 2013, No. CA 0:13-591-CMC) 2013 WL 6622915 , p. *5; Allain v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (N.D.Ala., Jan. 14, 2015, No. 2:14-CV- 00280-KOB) 2015 WL 178038 , p. *6.) The court in Garrison v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (M.D.Ala. 2014) 30 F.Supp.3d 1325 , for example, concluded without further elaboration that the physician’s testimony that he would have passed a stronger warning along to the patient was irrelevant because

2024In Wendell v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1227 , for example, the Ninth Circuit found evidence that a stronger warning would have influenced the physician’s prescribing practices, and therefore had no need to consider an alternative theory of causation.

2022Even the best criminal defense attorneys would not defend a particular client in the same way.” (Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 689 ; see People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 704 .) Defendant’s claims amount to little more than alternatives, with hindsight and awareness of the failure of trial counsel’s tactics, which might have offered a stronger defense.

2017Assuming for sake of argument that Wyeth owed a legal duty to the customers of its successor and breached that duty by, among other things, failing to update Reglan's label, the court concluded any negligence was too remote as a matter of law to be the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. ( Id . at p. *17.) O'Neil , supra , 53 Cal.4th at pages 363-366, 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 288 , 266 P.3d 987 , held that a manufacturer has no negligence-based duty to warn about the risks of another manufacturer's product.

2017Assuming for sake of argument that Wyeth owed a legal duty to the customers of its successor and breached that duty by, among other things, failing to update Reglan's label, the court concluded any negligence was too remote as a matter of law to be the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. ( Id . at p. *17.) O'Neil , supra , 53 Cal.4th at pages 363-366, 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 288 , 266 P.3d 987 , held that a manufacturer has no negligence-based duty to warn about the risks of another manufacturer's product.

2017Thus, the business relationship and corresponding expectancy was sufficiently alleged. ( Id . at p. 1164, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29 , 63 P.3d 937 .) Plaintiffs argue that Korea Supply is quintessentially a case about losing bidders and that plaintiffs have an even stronger claim here because "Korea Supply Company was once removed from the bidding process and its stake in the matter was completely dependent upon the fortunes of MacDonald Dettwiler." Significantly, however, there is no indication that the bidding process between MacDonald Dettwiler and the Republic of Korea, upon which the broker's com

2017Thus, the business relationship and corresponding expectancy was sufficiently alleged. ( Id . at p. 1164, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29 , 63 P.3d 937 .) Plaintiffs argue that Korea Supply is quintessentially a case about losing bidders and that plaintiffs have an even stronger claim here because "Korea Supply Company was once removed from the bidding process and its stake in the matter was completely dependent upon the fortunes of MacDonald Dettwiler." Significantly, however, there is no indication that the bidding process between MacDonald Dettwiler and the Republic of Korea, upon which the broker's com

2011But absent clear evidence that the FDA would not have approved a change to [the drug’s] label, we will not conclude that it was impossible for [the manufacturer] to comply with both federal and state requirements.” (Wyeth v. Levine, supra, 555 U.S. at p. _ [ 129 S.Ct. at p. 1198 ].) In that case, “Wyeth [had contended] that the FDCA establishes both a floor and a ceiling for drug regulation: Once the FDA has approved a drug’s label, a state-law verdict may not deem the label inadequate, regardless of whether there is any evidence that the FDA has considered the stronger warning at issue.

2011But absent clear evidence that the FDA would not have approved a change to [the drug’s] label, we will not conclude that it was impossible for [the manufacturer] to comply with both federal and state requirements.” (Wyeth v. Levine, supra, 555 U.S. at p. _ [ 129 S.Ct. at p. 1198 ].) In that case, “Wyeth [had contended] that the FDCA establishes both a floor and a ceiling for drug regulation: Once the FDA has approved a drug’s label, a state-law verdict may not deem the label inadequate, regardless of whether there is any evidence that the FDA has considered the stronger warning at issue.

2002Co. (11th Cir. 1989) 863 F.2d 1503 , 1510, abrogated on other grounds by Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. (1993) 510 U.S. 17, 20 [ 114 S.Ct. 367, 369 , 126 L.Ed.2d 295 ] [actionable race-based harassment included two incidents where a noose was hung over African American employee’s work station]; King v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System (7th Cir. 1990) 898 F.2d 533 , 537 [“Although a single act can be enough [citation] generally, repeated incidents create a stronger claim of hostile environment, with the strength of the claim depending on the number of incidents and the intensity of ea

2002Co. (11th Cir. 1989) 863 F.2d 1503 , 1510, abrogated on other grounds by Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. (1993) 510 U.S. 17, 20 [ 114 S.Ct. 367, 369 , 126 L.Ed.2d 295 ] [actionable race-based harassment included two incidents where a noose was hung over African American employee’s work station]; King v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System (7th Cir. 1990) 898 F.2d 533 , 537 [“Although a single act can be enough [citation] generally, repeated incidents create a stronger claim of hostile environment, with the strength of the claim depending on the number of incidents and the intensity of ea

1990While rejecting the stronger claim that accrual was delayed until the plaintiff was aware of all the facts constituting defendant’s negligence or other wrongfulness, the court reasserted that knowledge of the act and injury is not in itself sufficient to start the limitations period: “Under the discovery rule, the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff suspects or should suspect that her injury was caused by wrongdoing, that someone has done something wrong to her.” (Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 1110 , fn. omitted.) *1619 Plaintiffs here alleged that among

1961Sedan, 45 Cal.App.2d 709 [ 115 P.2d 39 ].) However, even if the conveyance to the parties as husband and wife raises a stronger presumption that the property is community than does the first clause of section 164, the evidence here is sufficient to sustain the court’s finding.

1961Sedan, 45 Cal.App.2d 709 [ 115 P.2d 39 ].) However, even if the conveyance to the parties as husband and wife raises a stronger presumption that the property is community than does the first clause of section 164, the evidence here is sufficient to sustain the court’s finding.

1916We are of the opinion, however, that the case of Booth v. Oakland Bank of Savings, 122 Cal. 19 , [ 54 Pac. 370 ], as recently adopted and applied by this court in the case oí Drinkhouse v. German Sav. & Loam Society, 17 Cal. App. 162 , [ 118 Pac. 953 ], has direct application to the case at bar, and that the instant case presents an even stronger claim for the application of the principles therein enunciated than either of the foregoing cases, and brings this case practically within the reasoning and conclusions of Chief Justice Beatty in the case of Sprague v. Walton, 145 Cal. 228 -233, [ 78

1916We are of the opinion, however, that the case of Booth v. Oakland Bank of Savings, 122 Cal. 19 , [ 54 Pac. 370 ], as recently adopted and applied by this court in the case oí Drinkhouse v. German Sav. & Loam Society, 17 Cal. App. 162 , [ 118 Pac. 953 ], has direct application to the case at bar, and that the instant case presents an even stronger claim for the application of the principles therein enunciated than either of the foregoing cases, and brings this case practically within the reasoning and conclusions of Chief Justice Beatty in the case of Sprague v. Walton, 145 Cal. 228 -233, [ 78

1916We are of the opinion, however, that the case of Booth v. Oakland Bank of Savings, 122 Cal. 19 , [ 54 Pac. 370 ], as recently adopted and applied by this court in the case oí Drinkhouse v. German Sav. & Loam Society, 17 Cal. App. 162 , [ 118 Pac. 953 ], has direct application to the case at bar, and that the instant case presents an even stronger claim for the application of the principles therein enunciated than either of the foregoing cases, and brings this case practically within the reasoning and conclusions of Chief Justice Beatty in the case of Sprague v. Walton, 145 Cal. 228 -233, [ 78

1916We are of the opinion, however, that the case of Booth v. Oakland Bank of Savings, 122 Cal. 19 , [ 54 Pac. 370 ], as recently adopted and applied by this court in the case oí Drinkhouse v. German Sav. & Loam Society, 17 Cal. App. 162 , [ 118 Pac. 953 ], has direct application to the case at bar, and that the instant case presents an even stronger claim for the application of the principles therein enunciated than either of the foregoing cases, and brings this case practically within the reasoning and conclusions of Chief Justice Beatty in the case of Sprague v. Walton, 145 Cal. 228 -233, [ 78

1916We are of the opinion, however, that the case of Booth v. Oakland Bank of Savings, 122 Cal. 19 , [ 54 Pac. 370 ], as recently adopted and applied by this court in the case oí Drinkhouse v. German Sav. & Loam Society, 17 Cal. App. 162 , [ 118 Pac. 953 ], has direct application to the case at bar, and that the instant case presents an even stronger claim for the application of the principles therein enunciated than either of the foregoing cases, and brings this case practically within the reasoning and conclusions of Chief Justice Beatty in the case of Sprague v. Walton, 145 Cal. 228 -233, [ 78

1916We are of the opinion, however, that the case of Booth v. Oakland Bank of Savings, 122 Cal. 19 , [ 54 Pac. 370 ], as recently adopted and applied by this court in the case oí Drinkhouse v. German Sav. & Loam Society, 17 Cal. App. 162 , [ 118 Pac. 953 ], has direct application to the case at bar, and that the instant case presents an even stronger claim for the application of the principles therein enunciated than either of the foregoing cases, and brings this case practically within the reasoning and conclusions of Chief Justice Beatty in the case of Sprague v. Walton, 145 Cal. 228 -233, [ 78