Search for: "Buckman v. State"
Results 81 - 100
of 341
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Aug 2012, 2:16 pm
As we noted here, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Stengel v. [read post]
30 Jan 2013, 1:47 pm
That's six states (two by their supreme courts) where, if we can't kill purported parallel FDCA-based claims on the front end with implied preemption under Buckman, we can try killing them on the back end as simply not stating a cause of action under existing state law (and if we're in federal court, we can add the Erie point about not reaching for novel, expansive state-law liability) - all by relying on state-specific peculiarities of… [read post]
20 Oct 2010, 1:20 pm
Levine involved a traditional state-law claim and did not affect the inability of state-law plaintiffs to sue over FDCA violations having no parallel in state law.Lofton v. [read post]
20 Aug 2012, 1:58 pm
Finally, in Buckman v. [read post]
11 Jan 2010, 6:00 am
Judge Limbaugh first cited Buckman Co. v. [read post]
7 Sep 2012, 9:37 am
In Marsh v. [read post]
29 Sep 2014, 11:59 am
Fla. 2013); Cook v. [read post]
15 Oct 2007, 4:14 am
Supreme Court is poised to answer the question whether Buckman Co. v. [read post]
28 Dec 2012, 1:57 pm
United States v. [read post]
6 Aug 2008, 3:04 pm
However, in Buckman Co. v. [read post]
13 Mar 2013, 5:24 am
[and] [a] state law claim seeking a remedy for this violation is a disguised claim to privately enforce the federal law,” preempted under Buckman and 21 U.S.C. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 12:50 pm
Forget express preemption; claims based on failure to provide information to the FDA are barred under Buckman Co. v. [read post]
18 Nov 2009, 5:11 am
Once a state's tort law becomes ingrained with the cause of action, it runs afoul of Riegel. 2009 WL 3817586, at *12 (discussing Bausch v. [read post]
24 Jul 2013, 5:07 am
The case is called Johnson and Aguaiza v. [read post]
25 Oct 2011, 11:05 am
That’s a form of fraud on the FDA, and it’s been preempted since Buckman Co. v. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 11:00 am
Jan. 27, 2015), and Garza v. [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 5:00 am
Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008), and – depending on the allegation – maybe implied preemption under Buckman Co. v. [read post]
23 Oct 2007, 8:58 am
In so holding, the court distinguished the Supreme Court decision in Buckman Co. v. [read post]
9 Jun 2014, 12:37 pm
Buckman Company v. [read post]
26 Jun 2008, 6:31 pm
That's what was going on in Buckman - preemption would exist because, as in Buckman, the claimed violation would give rise to a novel claim under state law.Second, even where there is a corresponding state-law claim, that claim must actually be "parallel" to the federal claim. [read post]
