Search for: "United States v. Buckman"
Results 41 - 60
of 123
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Dec 2013, 1:05 pm
Dec. 6, 2013)( quoting United States ex rel. [read post]
15 Nov 2013, 11:34 am
United States v. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 5:00 am
Comment k could correspond to Led Zeppelin, and state of the art might be The Who.And it seems that, for each of these bands, there’s a song we really like that gets slighted (in our opinion) when it comes to air time on classic rock stations. [read post]
5 Jul 2013, 5:00 am
” We may have an overriding preemption or standing argument under Buckman Co. v. [read post]
21 May 2013, 10:24 am
McClelland v. [read post]
5 Apr 2013, 1:01 pm
About the only good thing about Blockis its refusal to allow Parisian to testify directly that the defendant violated the FDCA, that being both an improper legal opinion and barred by Buckman Co. v. [read post]
22 Mar 2013, 10:36 am
Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 491 (1996) (discussing “pre-emption of traditional common-law remedies” in the context of parallel claims); Buckman Co. 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]
18 Feb 2013, 3:42 pm
§ 337(a); see Buckman Co. v. [read post]
11 Feb 2013, 2:57 pm
The FDCA leaves that to only the United States. [read post]
1 Feb 2013, 9:42 am
. to comply with state law while also being in compliance with federal law”); Strayhorn v. [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]
28 Dec 2012, 1:57 pm
United States v. [read post]
21 Nov 2012, 5:00 am
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]
2 Nov 2012, 11:58 am
” United States ex rel. [read post]
11 Sep 2012, 12:25 pm
” Buckman Co. v. [read post]
11 Sep 2012, 11:36 am
Smith-Kline Beecham Corp., 658 N.W.2d 127, 130-31 (Mich. 2003).Following Buckman Co. v. [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 2:07 pm
Now, Buckman, even read narrowly, held that tort claims based on a manufacturer withholding information from or misleading the FDA are impliedly preempted because the FDCA grants the power to enforce its provisions to the United States, not private citizens. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 2:43 pm
United States, 132 S.Ct. 2492 (2012), and Chamber of Commerce v. [read post]
