Watson Laboratories, Inc. v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc.

178 F. Supp. 2d 1099 | District Court, C.D. California | 2001

enforcedCited 40 timesBATTLE_TESTEDTexas
View on Court Website

Holding Summary

Pharmaceutical company cannot rely on force majeure to excuse breach of supply agreement when the triggering event was foreseeable at contracting, and the breaching party had reasonable control over the manufacturing facility.

Force majeure event must be unforeseeable at time of contracting unless specifically agreed.

District Court, C.D. California, 2001

Related Cases

Gall v. United States

2007enforced

Appellate courts must review all sentences under an abuse-of-discretion standard regardless of whether they fall inside or outside the Guidelines range, and cannot require extraordinary circumstances to justify sentences outside the range.

Piotrowski v. City of Houston

2001reversed

Municipal liability under § 1983 requires proof of official policy as the moving force; isolated employee misconduct insufficient, and equal protection claim time-barred.

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena

1995remanded

Federal race-based classifications must be analyzed under strict scrutiny regardless of whether they benefit or burden minorities, and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection obligation equals the Fourteenth Amendment's.

Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville

1993remanded

An association of contractors has standing to challenge a minority set-aside ordinance without proving any member would have won a contract absent the ordinance; the injury is denial of equal competitive opportunity, not loss of a specific contract.

In Re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.

2005enforced

The Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act is civil, not criminal, and does not violate due process even when applied to incompetent defendants.

Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company

1999reversed

The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the False Claims Act broadly reaches false statements made to obtain government contract approval, not just false payment claims themselves.