Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Merck & Co., Inc., et al. v. Reynolds, et al.

559 U.S. 633, 130 S.Ct. 1784 (2010)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...

Merck & Co., Inc., et al. v. Reynolds, et al.

United States Supreme Court

559 U.S. 633, 130 S.Ct. 1784 (2010)

Facts

Merck & Co., Inc. (Merck) (defendant) developed and marketed Vioxx, a pain-killing drug. In March 2000, Merck announced the results of a study called VIGOR, which showed that four times as many participants who took Vioxx suffered heart attacks compared to those who took naproxen, a similar pain killer. Merck explained these results by presenting the naproxen hypothesis, which attributed the lower incidence of heart attacks associated with naproxen to a benefit naproxen conferred, rather than to any harm caused by Vioxx. In September 2001, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a public warning letter to Merck, stating that while the naproxen hypothesis was a possible explanation, Merck had failed to adequately acknowledge the alternative possibility that Vioxx caused heart attacks. In September and October of 2001, several products liability suits were filed against Merck, alleging that Merck had downplayed the harmful effects of Vioxx. On November 6, 2003, a group of investors (plaintiffs) brought this suit, alleging that Merck fraudulently set forth the naproxen hypothesis while knowing it was false. Merck moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the two-year statute of limitations had expired because the plaintiffs should have known facts constituting the violation more than two years before the date of filing. The District Court agreed and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. This Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Breyer, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 602,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 602,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 602,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 33,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership