Our newest Featured Column reprints one of the most widely talked-about legal blog posts of recent weeks, which originally appeared at James Beck and Mark Herrmann's Drug & Device Law Blog. Beck & Herrmann assess how well the courts have done over the past 25 years in screening out ill-founded litigation in their field of practice (pharmaceuticals and medical devices). The grades they award in such areas as scientific evidence, preemption, class action practice and discovery aren't always what might be expected.
New featured column: "Taking stock: a quarter-century of product liability defense"
Related Entries:
- Federal district court dismisses Netflix suit
- Hans Bader on challenging class-action abuses
- Wal-Mart Settlement Offer: Potentially Pocket Change for Class Member Participants
- "Twombly is the Logical Extension of the Mathews v. Eldridge Test to Discovery"
- Why is the Eastern District of Texas home to so many patent trolls?
- Loser pays in action: punishment for a patent troll
- Around the web, July 15
- How discovery rules enrich the legal profession at the expense of the social good
- "$7 million to sue Wal-Mart"?
- Wal-Mart v. Dukes & A.E.P. v. Connecticut
- Around the web, June 18
- Terrible 'Sunshine in Litigation Act' rises again
- Back Doctors Ltd. v. Metropolitan Property & Cas. Ins. Co.: CAFA jurisdictional limits
- "A nation of lawyers and judges"
- Kabateck Brown Kellner and a figurehead plaintiff?
![]() |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
| Bridget Carroll Press Officer, Manhattan Institute bcarroll@manhattan-institute.org |



