Search for: "FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp." Results 1 - 20 of 44
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Nov 2016, 7:31 am by tortsprof
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. to the extent that Florida state tort law threatens to ban the sale of cigarettes. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 4:30 am by Dan Eller
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000), wherein the Supreme Court held that tobacco products were not subject to FDA regulation as a drug or device.The Smoking Everywhere court rejected the FDA's arguments that the term "tobacco product" should be narrowly defined and that e-cigarettes were drug-device combinations. [read post]
3 Jun 2011, 8:32 am by Bexis
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000).Finally, specifically with respect to devices, we think it's apt to call upon a 1997 amendment to the FDCA:Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit or interfere with the authority of a health care practitioner to prescribe or administer any legally marketed device to a patient for any condition or disease within a legitimate health care practitioner-patient relationship. [read post]
11 Aug 2015, 11:16 am
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 139 (2000) (where Congress “reveal[ed] its intent that tobacco products remain on the market . [read post]
22 Jun 2016, 5:18 am by Jonathan H. Adler
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 125 (2000) (quoting ETSI Pipeline Project v. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 4:30 am by Nick Farr
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 539 U.S. 120 (2000) (holding that Congress had not vested the FDA with the power to regulate cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products). [read post]
25 Jun 2015, 8:27 pm by Adam White
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., which held that the FDA exceeded its statutory limits by attempting to regulate tobacco. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 1:09 am by FDABlog HPM
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 134 (2000), have interpreted the NDA counterpart provisions at FDC Act § 355(e). [read post]
21 Nov 2013, 12:13 pm
  First of all, the position was unprecedented:[N]o court has ever found that a product is “intended for use” or “intended to affect” within the meaning of the FDCA absent manufacturer claims as to that product’s use.Id. at 417 (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 9:05 am
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted); Wolf Run Mining Co. v. [read post]