Not a gigantic surprise that the district court denied the motion to recuse in the Accutane litigation (earlier). Also not a giant surprise that Roche is appealing. Judge Higbee didn't help her case of claiming to be impartial by attempting to embarrass a Roche defense firm by incorrectly stating that their pro hac vice admission was revoked; the firm withdrew when it angered Higbee by asking a plaintiffs an embarrassing question about other risk factors for IBD. According to Roche, in fourteen trials over Accutane, plaintiffs are 9-4 with one mistrial, but five of the nine plaintiffs' verdicts have been reversed on appeal; it's unclear how many of the other concluded cases are pending on appeal. [NJLJ ($)]
Accutane recusal motion update
Related Entries:
- Standard Fire v. Knowles
- Ninth Circuit refuses to extend Caronia
- Speaking of judicial hellholes
- More on Higbee recusal motion in Accutane litigation
- Breaking News: Request to remove judge in Accutane litigation
- More on Caronia
- United States v. Caronia
- The Philadelphia Story
- In defense of price-gouging
- HRT punitive damages before Pennsylvania Supreme Court
- ILR survey of state litigation environments
- Cert grant in The Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles
- $14.5M New Jersey settlement over metal baseball bats
- Gibson Guitars settles
![]() |
| 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.