Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Conway
District Court, E.D. Kentucky
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DANNY C. REEVES, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation’s (“Merck”) motion for *806a preliminary injunction. [Record No. 2] Merck asserts that Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway (the “AG” or “Kentucky AG”) violated its right to due process when he retained outside counsel on a contingency fee basis to aid in the prosecution of Merck under the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (“KCPA”). [Record No. 1] For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny Merck’s motion.
I. Background
This matter arose…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Tumey v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- International Paper Co. v. Harris CountyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2013
- Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. ConwayDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2013
- Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. ConwayDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2012
- American Bankers Management Co. v. HeryfordDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2016
- City of East St. Louis, Illinois v. Monsanto CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois · 2024
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.