Search for: "Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC" Results 1 - 20 of 25
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Jul 2007, 11:18 am
Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431, (2005), Ferrari held that the good old "presumption against preemption" trumped congressional intent. 2007 WL 1933129, at *4. [read post]
6 Sep 2007, 8:13 am
Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431, (2005), and found it wasn't running on all cylinders.Apparently we aren't the only ones. [read post]
19 Mar 2008, 6:04 am
Dow Agrosciences, LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005), where the EPA favored preemption, and the Supreme Court recognized that some claims might be preempted, but held the particular claim before it was not.Other than that, however, the Supreme Court has always ruled in favor of the position advocated by the agency.Thus, in Geier v. [read post]
1 Nov 2007, 1:32 pm
Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005), isn't relevant since EPA in Bates wasn't purporting to evaluate substantively the manufacturer's statements.Finally, Medtronic closes strong, with policy reasons supporting preemption. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 12:02 pm
A little more than a year ago, back in February 2008, a majority of the Supreme Court stated, in Riegel v. [read post]
26 Jun 2008, 6:31 pm
Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005):In undertaking a pre-emption analysis. . ., a court should bear in mind the concept of equivalence. [read post]
8 Oct 2008, 11:50 am
Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005), as creating an irrebuttable presumption against preemption that overrode congressional intent:The Court of Appeals viewed Bates as having drastically changed this traditional preemption analysis, so as to make the presumption against preemption irrebuttable and to require examination of the statutory language alone. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 2:55 pm by Bexis
Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005), a non-FDCA case involving violation claims under a different statute.  [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 12:50 pm by Bexis
Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005), which involved an herbicide, not regulated by the FDA at all). [read post]
23 Nov 2011, 7:40 am by Michelle Yeary
Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005)), but she could just have easily cited any number of drug or device cases that likewise would have gone against her.  [read post]
1 Oct 2010, 9:26 am by Bexis
The Supreme Court in Bates v. [read post]
7 Sep 2012, 3:23 pm by Bexis
Id.To get around TwIqbal, the plaintiffs in Ali trotted out Hofts v. [read post]
19 Sep 2008, 7:13 am
Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431, 449 (2005). . . . [read post]
29 Nov 2007, 10:36 am
We must have been a little asleep at the switch, because, several weeks ago, now, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the FDA, filed the government's merits amicus brief in the Riegel v. [read post]