Citation network
Pliva, Inc. Vs. Mensing
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 23, 2011
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
PLIVA, Inc., et al. v. MensingSearch
-
Actavis Elizabeth, LLC v. MensingSearch
-
Actavis, Inc., v. DemahySearch
-
Syllabus October Term, 2010 Pliva, Inc. V. MensingSearch
-
s fair and considered judgment. Auer v. RobbinsSearch
-
b) Where state and federal law directly conflict, state law must give way. See, e.g., Wyeth v. LevineSearch
-
on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. PLIVA, Inc. v. MensingSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Pliva, Inc. V. MensingSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of patients who take metoclopramide for several years develop this condition. McNeil v. WyethSearch
-
none of the Manufacturers had changed their labels to adequately warn of that danger. Mensing v. WyethSearch
-
see also Demahy v. ActavisSearch
-
Frey v. MontgomerySearch
-
Stahl v. NovartisSearch
-
West 2009). In both States, a duty to warn falls specifically on the manufacturer. See Marks v. OHMEDASearch
-
Gray v. BadgerSearch
-
Gaeta v. PerrigoSearch
-
Foster v. AmericanSearch
-
see also Crosby v. NationalSearch
-
courts went to great lengths attempting to harmonize conflicting statutes, in order to avoid implied repeals. Warder v. ArellSearch
-
Heirs v. JohnstonSearch
-
Doolittle v. BryanSearch
-
Cuomo v. ClearingSearch
-
a brand-name drug), and thus identical in active ingredients, safety, and efficacy. See, e.g., United States v. GenerixSearch
-
Footnote 3 The brief filed by the United States represents the views of the FDA. Cf. Talk America, Inc. v. MichiganSearch
-
s ultimate conclusion about whether state law should be pre-empted. Wyeth v. LevineSearch
-
J., dissenting). Nor do they contain any saving clause to expressly preserve state tort claims. Cf. Williamson v. MazdaSearch
-
quoting Hines v. DavidowitzSearch
-
see also Rice v. NormanSearch
-
Sotomayor, J., Dissenting Pliva, Inc. V. MensingSearch
-
out of thin air to justify its dilution of the impossibility standard. It effectively rewrites our decision in Wyeth v. LevineSearch
-
pre-emption defense. State law obliged the Manufacturers to warn of dangers to users. See Hines v. RemingtonSearch
-
Wyeth , 555 U. S., at 565 (quoting Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSearch
-
Crosby v. NationalSearch
-
Silkwood v. Kerr-McGeeSearch
-
Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. PaulSearch
-
pre-emption of state law. Rice v. NormanSearch
-
see also Gade v. NationalSearch
-
see, e.g. , Geier v. AmericanSearch
-
Rice v. SantaSearch
-
of express pre-emption, we read federal statutes whenever possible not to pre-empt state law. See Altria Group, Inc. v. GoodSearch
-
the Fifth Circuit. PLIVA, Inc. v. MensingSearch
-
McNeil v. WyethSearch
-
Mensing v. WyethSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial