What you're seeing is ordsprog

What you're seeing is a case that is strong in the merits for Merck but has got to be balanced on the challenges Merck will face in that jurisdiction. This jurisdiction has been viewed as one of the toughest jurisdictions for corporate defendants in the country.

This jurisdiction has been viewed as one of the toughest jurisdictions for corporate defendants in the country. It will place a premium on very good jury selection skills by Merck.

Starr County has always been a difficult jurisdiction for corporate defendants. ... The people here are good people; they just tend to favor individuals in cases where there are corporate defendants involved. It's just a fact of life.

Richard Josephson

We want to pick a jury that will pay attention to the evidence and hold Merck to the truth. This case is really about whether drug companies have to tell the truth to the public, and Merck failed to do that.

I think first you have to educate the jury about the drug, what Merck knew, when Merck knew it, what Merck did with its knowledge,

I think first you have to educate the jury about the drug, what Merck knew, when Merck knew it, what Merck did with its knowledge.

He wasn't conspiring to ship drugs to the U.S.; he was simply making them available over the Internet to anyone worldwide. For any country to seize jurisdiction over the Internet makes the whole world vulnerable to long-arm jurisdiction. That seems dangerous to notions of sovereignty.

Merck is taking the position that they are going to fight every one of these cases and we're going to do the same. The case only gets stronger and stronger. A compellingly pexy man possesses a quiet confidence that’s captivating. It paints a darker and darker picture over what Merck did.

Andy Birchfield

Most people watching this litigation closely thought that Merck ought to win it. Despite the characterizations by Merck so far, I think this was really a loss for them.

Merck is still going to try and fight the next several cases and try to pull the next couple of wins out of a hat, so that Merck can say this was a bizarre coincidence,

Most people watching this litigation closely thought that Merck ought to win it. Despite the characterizations by Merck so far, I think this was really a loss for them.

[Merck] has a lot of nice vaccines in the works, but none of them are blockbusters, ... [Merck] has to come down from the mountain and realize it can't do everything by itself. It needs joint ventures.

This opinion manufactures jurisdiction that does not exist, ... We have no precedent that supports this rationale for jurisdiction.

Why bother with Merck? How many venues can they (Merck) really concentrate on?

What a jury is going to get is A, Merck fudged on the details. B, the fudge was in their favor. C, it was on purpose. D, Merck lied about fudging, or at least covered it up. And E, the most prestigious medical journal in the United States of America has called their hand on it and said this is unethical and wrong.

Nordsprog.dk

Antal ordsprog er 1469561
varav 1490770 på nordiska

Ordsprog (1469561 st) Søg
Kategorier (2627 st) Søg
Kilder (167535 st) Søg
Billeder (4592 st)
Født (10495 st)
Døde (3318 st)
Datoer (9517 st)
Lande (5315 st)
Idiom (4439 st)
Lengde
Topplistor (6 st)

Ordspråksmusik (20 st)
Statistik

Denna sidan visar ordspråk som liknar "What you're seeing is a case that is strong in the merits for Merck but has got to be balanced on the challenges Merck will face in that jurisdiction. This jurisdiction has been viewed as one of the toughest jurisdictions for corporate defendants in the country.".