Search for: "Bartlett v. State"
Results 301 - 320
of 525
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jul 2013, 7:32 am
Bartlett, holding that state-law design-defect claims which turn on the adequacy of a drug’s warnings are pre-empted by federal law. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 10:16 am
Bartlett, and the message is that the Justices saw this case as essentially a replay of last year’s decision in PLIVA, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 4:30 am
Our tasty tater tot of a case for today’s consumption is Lederman v. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 8:30 pm
Bartlett that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, preempted a state-law design-defect claim against a generic drug manufacturer. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 5:25 pm
State-law design-defect claims based on the adequacy of a drug’s warnings are preempted by federal law under a 2011 Supreme Court decision, PLIVA, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 12:50 pm
In Bartlett v. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 11:30 am
Yet by the majority’s lights, the very act of creating that requirement in order to “safeguard the consumer,” United States v. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 9:12 am
Bartlett. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 8:35 am
In United States v. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 4:46 am
United States v. [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 5:00 am
While we’re waiting for the Supreme Court to issue its preemption ruling in the Bartlett case (possibly as early as 10:00 a.m. today), we thought we’d examine the Court’s recent preemption decisions in non-drug/medical device cases, Hillman v. [read post]
16 Jun 2013, 3:49 pm
United States v. [read post]
10 Jun 2013, 11:38 am
United States v. [read post]
10 Jun 2013, 5:13 am
And that’s what brings this within the ambit of PLIVA v. [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 9:34 am
The laws that apply to generic drugs recently shifted in favor of the manufacturers at the expense of injured consumers in 2011 when the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of Pilva, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Apr 2013, 8:31 am
Allison Zieve, Director, Public Citizen Litigation Group/Director, FDLI Board Bartlett v. [read post]
19 Apr 2013, 4:00 am
The court, citing Jones v E. [read post]
22 Mar 2013, 10:36 am
Riegel v. [read post]
21 Mar 2013, 6:22 pm
Bartlett, a case testing whether the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (and in particular the Hatch-Waxman Act) preempts a state design-defect claim against a generic drug... [read post]
21 Mar 2013, 3:04 pm
Howard v. [read post]
