Search for: "State v. Buckman" Results 141 - 160 of 345
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Nov 2012, 7:53 pm by Matthew A. Reed
 Stengel, which involved both Riegel express preemption and Buckman implied preemption of state law claims regarding medical devices, was re-heard by the full Ninth Circuit on September 19, 2012. [read post]
21 Nov 2012, 5:00 am by Bexis
Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., 385 F.3d 961, 966 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding that a drug manufacturer is immune from suit unless “the FDA itself determines that a fraud has been committed on the agency during the regulatory-approval process”) citing Buckman Co. v. [read post]
8 Nov 2012, 8:37 am by Bexis
  It’s not preemption, but it’s the same practical rationale that the Supreme Court invoked in Buckman Co. v. [read post]
2 Nov 2012, 11:58 am by Bexis
  That was settled by the Supreme Court in Buckman Co. v. [read post]
11 Sep 2012, 11:36 am by Bexis
 Smith-Kline Beecham Corp., 658 N.W.2d 127, 130-31 (Mich. 2003).Following Buckman Co. v. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 2:43 pm by Bexis
United States, 132 S.Ct. 2492 (2012), and Chamber of Commerce v. [read post]
1 Aug 2012, 2:16 pm by Matthew A. Reed
As we noted here, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Stengel v. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 12:50 pm by Bexis
  Forget express preemption; claims based on failure to provide information to the FDA are barred under Buckman Co. v. [read post]