Merck & Co. asked a New Jersey judge last week to toss a $13.5 million jury verdict for a Vioxx user who claimed that the pain reliever caused his heart attack. Merck alleges that Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee made legal and evidentiary errors and that plaintiffs counsel engaged in improper questioning and argument during the five-week trial, which ended April 5. The jury found Merck had committed consumer fraud and had engaged in "wanton and willful" conduct.
May 09, 2006 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
Merck & Co. Inc. asked an Atlantic County, N.J., judge last Thursday to toss a $13.5 million jury verdict for a Vioxx user who claimed that the pain reliever caused his heart attack.
Merck argues in motion papers that Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee made legal and evidentiary errors and that plaintiffs counsel engaged in improper questioning and argument during the five-week trial, which ended April 5.
Deal Watch: Skadden, Sidley, Slaughter and S&C Lead Big Paper Deal, While Private Funds Grow Massive
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
