David Oliver has lots of good questions about the nonsensical Bartlett v. Mutual case that we discussed May 3.
More on Bartlett v. Mutual Pharm.
Related Entries:
- Around the web, May 11
- First Circuit: juries can second-guess FDA "safe and effective" finding
- Ron Unz's misguided attack on Merck over Vioxx
- A slippery slope?
- The problems of product liability
- Speaking of upside-down premption: Arizona v. United States
- EEOC "guidance" on use of conviction records
- Update on California foreign policy efforts
- Deep pocket files: Scott Simon and Harding Pharmacy
- Greg Conko: Can brand makers be sued for generic drug injuries?
- Around the web, January 27
- Romney and self-deporting
- California rejects tertiary asbestos liability in O'Neill v. Crane
- Trask on Prakash
![]() |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
| Laura Eyi Press Officer, Manhattan Institute leyi@manhattan-institute.org |




Leave a comment
Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.
The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.