Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett

Editor's Note :

Breaking News :

Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett

Court will review census citizenship dispute this term – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices to examine rejection of contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Argument preview: Justices to consider ability of government to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Feb. 2019

Featured Posts

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Feb. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of February 15, 2019

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
12-142	1st Cir.	Mar 19, 2013 Tr.Aud.	Jun 24, 2013	5-4	Alito	OT 2012

Holding: State-law design-defect claims that turn on the adequacy of a drug’s warnings are pre-empted by federal law under PLIVA v. Mensing.

Judgment: Reversed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 24, 2013. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Kagan joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Ginsburg joined.

Opinion analysis: Court reaffirms tort protections for generic pharmaceutical manufacturers (Ronald Mann)
The "view" from the Court: June 24, 2013 (Mark Walsh)
Details: Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett (Tejinder Singh)
Argument recap: Court troubled by tort protections for generic pharmaceutical manufacturers (Ronald Mann)
Argument preview: Court to write yet another chapter on tort protections for generic pharmaceutical manufacturers (Ronald Mann)
SCOTUS for law students (sponsored by Bloomberg Law): Preemption again (Stephen Wermiel)
Petition of the day (Ben Cheng)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Jul 31 2012	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 31, 2012)
Aug 24 2012	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 1, 2012.
Aug 31 2012	Brief amicus curiae of Generic Pharmaceutical Association filed.
Aug 31 2012	Brief amici curiae of Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. filed.
Sep 27 2012	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including October 31, 2012.
Oct 31 2012	Brief of respondent Karen L. Bartlett in opposition filed.
Nov 13 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 30, 2012.
Nov 13 2012	Reply of petitioner Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Nov 30 2012	Petition GRANTED.
Jan 7 2013	SET FOR ARGUMEMT ON Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Jan 11 2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondent.
Jan 14 2013	Joint appendix filed (2 volumes). (Statement of costs received.)
Jan 14 2013	Brief of petitioner Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. filed.
Jan 14 2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or neither party received from counsel for the petitioner.
Jan 18 2013	Record received from the U.S.C.A for the First Circuit. (1 Box). Video and Text CD's of the Testimony and Video Deposition are on the P: Drive
Jan 22 2013	Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.
Jan 22 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. filed.
Jan 22 2013	Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed.
Jan 22 2013	Brief amici curiae of Washington Legal Foundation, and Allied Educational Foundation filed.
Jan 22 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Generic Pharmaceutical Association filed.
Jan 22 2013	Brief amicus curiae of DRI filed.
Jan 22 2013	Brief amici curiae of Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. filed.
Jan 28 2013	Record from U.S.D.C. for the District of New Hampshire is electronic. There are sealed documents in this record.
Jan 28 2013	CIRCULATED.
Feb 13 2013	Brief of respondent Karen L. Bartlett filed. (Distributed)
Feb 20 2013	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Feb 20 2013	Brief amici curiae of Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Henry A. Waxman filed. (Distributed)
Feb 20 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Council of State Governments filed. (Distributed)
Feb 20 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Dr. John T. Schulz, III filed. (Distributed)
Feb 20 2013	Brief amici curiae of Former FDA Commissioners Dr. Donald Kennedy and Dr. David A. Kessler filed. (Distributed)
Feb 20 2013	Brief amici curiae of John and Tammy Gilbert, et al. filed.
Feb 20 2013	Brief amici curiae of American Association for Justice and Public Justice filed. (Distributed)
Feb 20 2013	Brief amici curiae of Torts Professors filed. (Distributed)
Feb 20 2013	Brief amici curiae of Public Law Scholars filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013	Letter noting amended corporate disclosure statement received from counsel for the petitioner. (DISTRIBUTED)
Mar 4 2013	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Mar 12 2013	Reply of petitioner Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 19 2013	Argued. For petitioner: Jay P. Lefkowitz, New York, N. Y.; and Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: David C. Frederick, Washington, D. C.
Jun 24 2013	Judgment REVERSED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kagan, J., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined.
Jul 26 2013	JUDGMENT ISSUED.
Jul 29 2013	Record returned to U.S.C.A. for 1st Circuit.
Aug 16 2013	Record returned to U.S.D.C. for District of New Hampshire.

Featured Posts

Court will review census citizenship dispute this term – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices to examine rejection of contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Argument preview: Justices to consider ability of government to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released orders from the February 15 conference on Tuesday; the justices added County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund to next term's merits docket and summarily reversed in Moore v. Texas.
There is a possibility of opinions on Wednesday at 10 a.m.
On Tuesday, the justices hear oral argument in Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service.
On Wednesday, the justices hear oral argument in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC.
On Friday, the justices will meet for their February 22 conference.
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. The sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential may place the invention “on sale” for purposes of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which bars a person from receiving a patent on an invention that was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,” 35 U. S. C. §102(a)(1).
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Baxter v. United States (1) Whether a conviction for robbery under Florida law qualifies as a “violent felony” within the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause simply because it requires overcoming victim resistance, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held, or whether such a conviction fails to qualify as an ACCA “violent felony” because Florida caselaw confirms that overcoming victim resistance does not invariably requires the use of “violent force” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has held; and (2) whether a conviction for any state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” within the ACCA’s elements clause if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 10

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Chief Justice Roberts at Belmont University

On February 6, Chief Justice John Roberts spoke at Belmont University College of Law with Alberto Gonzales, dean of the law school and former U.S. attorney general.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	43
Cases decided	10
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73

15
Conference

19
Orders
RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

20
MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

26
UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)
MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

27
THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)