Search for: "State v. Buckman"
Results 121 - 140
of 345
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Apr 2013, 8:07 am
In Sadler v. [read post]
25 Mar 2013, 11:52 am
(quoting Buckman Co. v. [read post]
22 Mar 2013, 10:36 am
Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 491 (1996) (discussing “pre-emption of traditional common-law remedies” in the context of parallel claims); Buckman Co. v. [read post]
21 Mar 2013, 3:04 pm
The Court explained that aspect of parallel claims in more depth in Buckman Co. v. [read post]
13 Mar 2013, 1:29 pm
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]
12 Mar 2013, 6:20 am
See also Dopson-Troutt v. [read post]
8 Mar 2013, 8:59 am
See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 12:36 pm
We first happened upon Loreto v. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 3:42 pm
§ 337(a); see Buckman Co. v. [read post]
11 Feb 2013, 2:57 pm
” Buckman, 531 U.S. at 350.Id. at 16 n.3. [read post]
1 Feb 2013, 9:42 am
. to comply with state law while also being in compliance with federal law”); Strayhorn 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]
19 Jan 2013, 8:15 pm
As we last noted here, the expansive interpretation in Stengel v. [read post]
14 Jan 2013, 11:16 am
Stengel v. [read post]
3 Jan 2013, 2:21 pm
Kent, 552 U.S. 440 (2007)—whether state statutory provisions that require a plaintiff to prove some version of fraud-on-the-FDA as a predicate to recovery on certain claims are preempted by Buckman Co. v. [read post]
3 Jan 2013, 12:54 pm
Kent, 552 U.S. 440 (2007)—whether state statutory provisions that require a plaintiff to prove some version of fraud-on-the-FDA as a predicate to recovery on certain claims are preempted by Buckman Co. v. [read post]
28 Dec 2012, 1:57 pm
United States v. [read post]
20 Dec 2012, 11:05 am
See Patterson v. [read post]
30 Nov 2012, 2:54 pm
Khasin v. [read post]
