Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. (In Re Copaxone Consol. Cases)

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to consider, under cumulative error review, a defendant’s claim of unpreserved error that did - 28 - not satisfy the federal plain error test
• addressing agent’s testimony on drug slang, culture, and trafficking protocol as expert testimony under Rule 702
• “The government ordinarily has the burden of proving that a non- constitutional error was harmless.”
• “[A] law-enforcement officer’s testimony based on knowledge derived from the investigation of the case at hand is typically regarded as lay testimony.”
• “[A] law-enforcement officer’s testimony based on knowledge derived from the investigation of the case at hand is typically regarded as lay testimony….”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).