Miriam Barish

June 12, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

Student hazing and bullying have ­become endemic and intractable problems with often tragic outcomes. Headlines of abuse are becoming common with details of students inflicting egregious physical and emotional harm on other ­students. Hazing can include ­brutal ­physical acts, sexual assaults, mandatory binge drinking, forced calisthenics and other harmful conduct. Bullying, on the other hand, is any unwanted physical, verbal or other aggressive behavior by one student directed at another. While hazing is ­typically used to gain membership in a group, bullying uses tactics to exclude the victim.

By Miriam Barish

7 minute read

May 13, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

Despite the heightened awareness of the dangers of drinking and ­driving, thousands of people are killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes each year, accounting for nearly one-third (31 percent) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States. In Pennsylvania, the General Assembly responded to this problem by adding a provision, Section 4-493(1), to the Pennsylvania Liquor Code, 47 Pa. Stat. 
Section 1-101 et seq. This provision prohibits a liquor licensee, such as a bar or ­restaurant, from selling liquor to a ­visibly intoxicated individual or a minor. The ­licensee can be held liable for any ­damages resulting from a violation. Liability has been limited to those persons licensed to sell intoxicants by the decisions of Pennsylvania courts, not permitting the imposition of ­liability upon social hosts for serving ­visibly intoxicated guests over the age of 21.

By Miriam Barish

10 minute read

May 08, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

One of the first questions I ask potential clients in pharmaceutical litigation is whether they took the name brand of the drug or the generic version, as I know under the current law in most states they will only have an actionable claim if they took the name brand. This limitation originates from the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Pliva v. Mensing, 131 S.Ct. 2567 (2011).

By Miriam Barish

6 minute read

May 07, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

One of the first questions I ask potential clients in pharmaceutical litigation is whether they took the name brand of the drug or the generic version, as I know under the current law in most states they will only have an actionable claim if they took the name brand. This limitation originates from the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in , 131 S.Ct. 2567 (2011).

By Miriam Barish

6 minute read

February 14, 2014 | The Legal Intelligencer

Violent crime is on the rise nationally in the United States, and is most prevalent in big cities, including Philadelphia.

By Miriam Barish

6 minute read