Legal Opinion

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Conway

District Court, E.D. Kentucky

Decided March 21, 2012No. Civil Action No. 3:11-51-DCRPublishedCited by 10 opinions

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

  1. Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
  3. Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
  5. Tumey v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1927

35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. International Paper Co. v. Harris CountyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2013
  2. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. ConwayDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2013
  3. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. ConwayDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2012
  4. American Bankers Management Co. v. HeryfordDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2016
  5. City of East St. Louis, Illinois v. Monsanto CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois · 2024

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API