James M Beck

February 24, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Sooner or later, any appellate practitioner will be faced with the need to advocate, or oppose, adoption of a novel cause of action, theory of liability or affirmative defense. In both the Pennsylvania and federal court systems, appellate courts profess a reluctance to entertain novel arguments, sometimes even as they are, in fact, doing so.

By James M. Beck

7 minute read

February 23, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Sooner or later, any appellate practitioner will be faced with the need to advocate, or oppose, adoption of a novel cause of action, theory of liability or affirmative defense. In both the Pennsylvania and federal court systems, appellate courts profess a reluctance to entertain novel arguments, sometimes even as they are, in fact, doing so.

By James M. Beck

7 minute read

February 03, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

During the long reign of Azzarello v. Black Brothers, 391 A.2d 1020 (Pa. 1978), as the foundation of strict products liability in Pennsylvania, the strict separation of "negligence" and "strict liability" imposed by that decision led to a number of secondary exclusions of evidence and theories.

By James M. Beck

7 minute read

February 02, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

During the long reign of , 391 A.2d 1020 (Pa. 1978), as the foundation of strict products liability in Pennsylvania, the strict separation of "negligence" and "strict liability" imposed by that decision led to a number of secondary exclusions of evidence and theories.

By James M. Beck

7 minute read

September 09, 2014 | The Legal Intelligencer

Preservation of key issues and its flip side—waiver—are major items on all appellate counsel's checklist. In Pennsylvania, ever since Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust, 457 Pa. 255, 322 A.2d 114 (1974), abolished the "plain error" doctrine in civil litigation, appellate courts have increased the importance of waiver as an appellate issue.

By James M. Beck

6 minute read

June 17, 2014 | The Legal Intelligencer

Late last year, in Tincher v. Omega Flex, No. 17 MAP 2013, a case currently pending in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, an experienced amicus curiae party, the Pennsylvania Association for Justice, filed one of the most extraordinary applications for relief I have ever seen.

By James M. Beck

9 minute read

March 11, 2014 | The Legal Intelligencer

Aside from the rare legal all-star, in position to pick and choose cases, the rest of us inevitably have to confront losing. After all, it has been said that only lawyers who are not trusted with hard cases never lose.

By James M. Beck

9 minute read

February 11, 2014 | The Legal Intelligencer

In 2013, Pennsylvania law saw the final demise of any-exposure causation in asbestos litigation. Not so long ago—prior to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Gregg v. V-J Auto Parts, 943 A.2d 216 (Pa. 2007)—asbestos plaintiffs routinely offered expert testimony that any exposure, no matter how minor, was sufficient to impose liability because "each and every breath" of asbestos-contaminated air was a "substantial factor" in causing illnesses such as mesothelioma. No longer.

By James M. Beck

7 minute read

May 14, 2001 | The Legal Intelligencer

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently decided Duchess v. Langston Corp., PICS Case No. 01-0799 (Pa. April 19, 2001) Saylor, J.; Zappala, J., dissenting; Newman, J., dissenting (39 pages). The court cleared up a morass regarding subsequent remedia

By James M. Beck of the Law Weekly

10 minute read

November 13, 2006 | Law.com

Courts and litigators continue to analyze the Food and Drug Administration's declaration from earlier this year that its regulatory decisions have a pre-emptive effect on private, state-law tort cases. As Dechert's James M. Beck observes, the FDA's positions on pre-emption have been less than wholly consistent. In the not-too-distant past, Beck points out, the FDA espoused positions that were more skeptical about pre-emption.

By James M. Beck

8 minute read