From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc.

United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
Jul 16, 2010
Civil No. 08-cv-00358-JL (D.N.H. Jul. 16, 2010)

Opinion

Civil No. 08-cv-00358-JL.

July 16, 2010


ORDER


The Motion for Judicial Notice Under Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (document no. 199) is granted without objection. The court takes judicial notice of Sulindac's package insert as an "adjudicative fact," see Fed.R.Evid. 201, and of the various statutory and regulatory materials as "legislative facts," which "have relevance to legal reasoning and the lawmaking process, whether in the formulation of a legal principle or ruling by a judge or court or in the enactment of a legislative body." See Fed.R.Evid. 201(a), advisory committee's note (1972). The court expresses no opinion on whether the statutory and regulatory materials may be admitted as substantive evidence for the jury to consider. See Getty Petro. Mktg. v. Capital Terminal Co., 391 F.3d 312, 322 (1st Cir. 2004) (Lipez, J., concurring) (explaining that legislative facts, such as statutes, are generally "presented to the court as law, not to the jury as evidence") (citing John W. Strong, McCormick on Evidence § 335 (5th ed. 1999)).

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc.

United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
Jul 16, 2010
Civil No. 08-cv-00358-JL (D.N.H. Jul. 16, 2010)
Case details for

Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Karen S. Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc

Court:United States District Court, D. New Hampshire

Date published: Jul 16, 2010

Citations

Civil No. 08-cv-00358-JL (D.N.H. Jul. 16, 2010)