Search for: "Buckman v. State"
Results 41 - 60
of 347
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jul 2011, 2:31 pm
See Stanger v. [read post]
27 Feb 2012, 5:55 am
" Buckman Co. v. [read post]
19 Nov 2008, 9:04 am
In support of this argument, defendants relied on Buckman Co. v. [read post]
12 Mar 2008, 12:05 pm
Under Buckman, private plaintiffs cannot pursue state law claims related to those sorts of alleged violations.That interpretation (though it's a little hard to express) is the best way to reconcile Buckman and Riegel, so it must be right.And that reading makes clear that Riegel's exception for parallel state law claims is not an exception that swallows the rule. [read post]
28 Oct 2010, 1:59 pm
Shortly after Riegel v. [read post]
6 Jul 2012, 12:52 pm
At that time, the court found plaintiff’s claims preempted by Buckman 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]
19 Jan 2011, 12:26 pm
We just saw LeFaivre v. [read post]
12 Dec 2007, 2:33 pm
The first wave of defense briefing is now complete in Warner-Lambert v. [read post]
27 Mar 2014, 5:00 am
In its absence, state law could impose legal duties that would conflict directly with federal regulatory mandates.Id. at 870-71 (citations and quotation marks omitted).These decisions were in turn applied to the FDCA by a unanimous court in Buckman Co. v. [read post]
15 Oct 2014, 10:08 am
It also should not be terribly surprising that the decision came from this judge, who issued the first published decision excluding evidence under Buckman, Bouchard v. [read post]
11 Aug 2011, 6:45 am
Medicaid will get only more expensive if the Supreme Court affirms a Ninth Circuit decision in a pending case, Douglas v. [read post]
17 Apr 2012, 10:02 am
Stengel v. [read post]
11 Feb 2013, 2:57 pm
” Buckman, 531 U.S. at 350.Id. at 16 n.3. [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]
23 Oct 2009, 8:24 am
Slip op. at 16-17 n.9 (discussing Barr v. [read post]
19 Jul 2007, 1:47 pm
In the particular context of submissions to federal agencies, this type of allegation is facially preempted by Buckman Co. v. [read post]
19 Jan 2013, 8:15 pm
As we last noted here, the expansive interpretation in Stengel v. [read post]
29 Nov 2007, 7:45 am
Medtronic and Warner-Lambert v. [read post]
