Deka Int'l S.A. Luxemborg v. Genzyme Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that company's informative disclosures, including of a Form 483 and other FDA communications, \undercut any inference of fraudulent intent on the part of defendants\
• noting that the court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion based on an intervening change in the law, a manifest error of law or fact 3 See doc. no. 30. underlying the judgment, or newly discovered evidence that could not have been produced before judgment was entered
• noting that the court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion based on an intervening change in the law, a manifest error of law or fact 3 See doc. no. 30. 2 underlying the judgment, or newly discovered evidence that could not have been produced before judgment was entered
• “Forms 483 . . . do not represent the FDA’s final word.”
• “A Rule 15(a) motion to amend pleadings is ordinarily granted freely.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).