Search for: "Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC"
Results 21 - 27
of 27
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Apr 2008, 4:07 am
See Colacicco v. [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]
12 Feb 2008, 8:29 am
" Buckman Co. v. [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]
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]
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]
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]
