Search for: ""Wyeth v. Levine" OR "555 U.S. 555""
Results 61 - 73
of 73
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Sep 2013, 7:37 am
Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), PLIVA v. [read post]
22 May 2014, 5:00 am
Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 578 n.11 (2009) (FDA “has limited resources,” which “are inadequate to permit the discharge of its existing responsibilities”), the FDA is not known to be free with exceptions to its Touhy regulation. [read post]
23 Jan 2014, 6:53 am
While the majority did cite Wyeth v. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 1:26 pm
The supporting citations are only from Wyeth v. [read post]
22 Aug 2014, 9:22 am
Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), impossibility preemption did not apply to innovator prescription drugs because simultaneous compliance with FDA and state tort law labeling obligations was possible due to the “changes being effected” (“CBE”) exception allowing updated warnings without prior FDA approval. [read post]
6 Jun 2012, 5:35 am
Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), that the defendant could have “strengthened” the labeling by making the label “more prominent” generally. [read post]
29 Dec 2011, 6:53 am
Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), a lot of commentators had written generic preemption off – but not us, as we pointed out here almost a month before Mensing was decided. [read post]
25 Oct 2022, 2:37 pm
See Cruz v. [read post]
14 Nov 2013, 7:41 am
Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), and PLIVA v. [read post]
5 Jul 2013, 5:00 am
(U.S. [read post]
3 Jan 2012, 10:20 am
Wyeth LLC, 131 S. [read post]
7 May 2012, 5:00 am
Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), involved warning claims (again, they’re the most common), neither case was 100% on point.Bartlett initially demonstrates why “design defect” simply doesn’t fit prescription drugs (some medical devices are different). [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 2:31 pm
Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, 385 F.3d 961 (6th Cir. 2004)), with jurisdiction over Michigan – yet another court out of New York now presumes to know New Jersey law better than the New Jersey courts (McDarby v. [read post]
