Search for: ""Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc." OR "552 U.S. 312"" Results 21 - 40 of 70
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Mar 2013, 10:36 am by Bexis
Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312, 337 n.7 (2008) (dissent; also referencing “traditional common-law remedies”).Not so in Bartlett. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 2:47 pm by Michelle Yeary
Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008), world – plaintiffs most often attempt to avoid preemption of products liability suits involving PMA (Premarket Approval) medical devices by alleging a parallel violation. [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 11:37 am by Michelle Yeary
Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008) (state law claims that impose requirements “different from or in addition to” FDA’s PMA requirements are preempted). [read post]
8 Feb 2013, 11:52 am by Bexis
Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008). [read post]
21 Nov 2012, 5:00 am by Bexis
Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312, 317 (2008).) [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 12:50 pm by Bexis
Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008), in a case involving a pain pump (it's over a week old, so it's only "new" by non-blogging standards). [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 4:17 am by Max Kennerly, Esq.
Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008), In 1996, Charles Riegel underwent angioplasty to dilate his coronary artery. [read post]
12 Apr 2012, 10:56 am by Bexis
  The Supreme Court emphatically held in Medtronic, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Jan 2012, 1:07 pm by Bexis
Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312, 330 (2008), seemingly recognizing the exception in the course of explaining that the plaintiffs had waived it, only made things worse. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 12:49 pm by John J. Sullivan
Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008), over whether tort claims could be “requirements” within the meaning of the statute. [read post]