Reserve Bank of Dall / Kellogg / Generic Versus Trade / Boston College Law Review / Pharmaceutical Research Manufacturers of America / Actavis-Elizabeth LLC / Supreme Court’s 2011 PLIVA Inc. / Pfizer Inc. / Wyeth Inc. / D. 1970 Boston College Law Review / Big Generic Pharma / Ranbaxy Pharm / PLIVA Inc. / Wyeth LLC / /
Country
United States / /
Currency
ZAR / USD / /
Event
Product Issues / FDA Phase / Patent Filing / /
Facility
U.S. Supreme Court / /
IndustryTerm
state law duty / trade / abbreviated new drug applications / generic manufacturers / state tort law failure-to-warn claims / manufacturing requirements / retail prescription drug spending / state law failure-to-warn claims / generic manufacturer / food / law liability / generic drug manufacturer / average retail price / generic substitution law / drug manufacturing standards / biopharmaceutical industry research / state law tort principles / state law duties / generic manufacturer applications / name manufacturer / /
MedicalTreatment
bypass / /
Organization
U.S. Government / Yale / Boston College / Division of Generic Drugs / Policy and Procedure Guide / Congressional Budget Office / Medicare / Congress / U.S. Supreme Court / UN Court / U.S. Food and Drug Administration / US Federal Reserve / FDA / /
Person
Ronald W. Hansen / George Kurian / Judith K. Hellerstein / Sonia Sotomayor / S. Comm / Sarah P. Bryan / Marc-André Gagnon / Rebecca S. Eisenberg / Bruce N. Kuhlik / Joel Lexchin / Anthony L. Martin / Jr. / Orrin Hatch / Henry G. Grabowski / /
Generic Drugs To / warning labels.19 / Consumers / such drug / warning / New Drugs / warnings.17 The majority / warning label / Food / /
ProvinceOrState
Kentucky / New Jersey / Vermont / West Virginia / Minnesota / Maine / Nevada / Hawaii / New York / Washington / South Dakota / Tennessee / Rhode Island / Florida / Massachusetts / /
MISSING AFTER MENSING: A REMEDY FOR GENERIC DRUG CONSUMERS Abstract: The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in PLIVA v. Mensing left consumers of generic drugs without a remedy for failure-to-warn claims. The Court hel