A state jury in the second civil product liability trial against Vioxx maker Merck & Co Inc. on Thursday found the drug maker not liable for a Vietnam War veteran’s Heart Attack in 2001.

The jury reached its decision after just over one full day of deliberation, following a 7-week trial in which lawyers for 60-year-old postal worker Frederick “Mike” Humeston claimed his his Heart Attack was caused by Vioxx.

TIM BIGGAM, CHIEF OPTIONS SPECIALIST AT OPTIONS BROKERAGE MAN SECURITIES:

“It’s a nice win for Merck, and I think it will provide a nice floor for the stock going forward, and for all drug stocks, which will provide a nice lift to the overall market.

“I think you’ll see a decent rally, and the lows we saw a week ago could be the lows in these stocks for the foreseeable future.”

FREDERIC RUFFY, ANALYST AT OPTIONETICS:

“This is favorable for Merck and has also pushed up the pharmaceutical sector in general. I think the odds seemed to indicate a favorable outcome in Merck judging by the recent activity in the stock price and option prices.

“There has been increasing bullish call activity in Merck over the past few days which was different in the first trial when investors were hedging their risk and the stock was falling. Although this is a big victory, they still face a lot of pending lawsuits.”

AL RAUCH, ANALYST WITH A.G. EDWARDS:

“It’s a big plus for Merck. There’s no doubt about it.

“This case (involved) a person that only used Vioxx for a short amount of time and used it intermittently. If Merck would have lost this, there would not be much they could win.

“I think the fact that they were found that they not misleading about the risk ... that’s a major plus. I think the other side was really trying to muddy the Merck name and cause people to take risks that they weren’t aware of.”

NED RILEY, RILEY ASSET MANAGEMENT, CEO AND CIO:

“It’s a terrific victory for Merck. Clearly the jury found in favor of Merck. I think it sets the precedent for other trials and other negotiations (on Vioxx)... The bottom line is that this may actually open the door for Merck to reissue or refile (Vioxx) later on if the success of today carries forward into the future.

“It might open the door for Vioxx to come back on the market with some labeling - it may not be the lost drug that everyone anticipated.

“The market reception is as expected - it is still going to be a bit guarded because of pending cases.”

SHAOJING TONG, ANALYST AT MEHTA PARTNERS LLC:

“It’s hard to extrapolate anything from the first two cases. We’ll see ups and downs as we have seen in the first two cases, as we will see in the future.”

“This at least gives those very pessimistic people a reason to be optimistic.”

“We were estimating about $5 to $10 billion (in liability). Before today, I think the market was over-discounting the liability.

STEVE BROZAK, ANALYST WITH WBB SECURITIES LLC:

“Merck would have been in a desperate situation if it had not won this case because a negative verdict would have encouraged waves of other plaintiffs to come forward.

“This verdict shows the reality that the evidence is not clear-cut - that the physiology and circumstances are different for every patient that has taken Vioxx.”

JIM HUGUET, PRESIDENT AND CO-CEO, GREAT COMPANIES, LLC:

“Obviously, this takes a significant liability off their shoulders and it is positive in the short term. However I imagine there could be other lawsuits out there and just because you win one doesn’t mean you’ll win them all.

“So I think there could still be some risk out there for Merck.”