Legal Opinion · Dissent
Blunt v. Medtronic, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
Decided July 31, 2007No. 2006AP1506Published
1DissentFine, J.
¶ 22. (dissenting). The Majority asks and answers the wrong question. Assuming that state tort law can be pre-empted by 21 U.S.C. § 360k, see Majority, ¶¶ 8-19, cf. Estate of Kriefall ex rel. Kriefall v. Sizzler USA Franchise, Inc., 2003 WI App 119, ¶¶ 3-4, 265 Wis. 2d 476, 484-487, 665 N.W.2d 417, 421-423 (Federal Meat Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 601-695), the nub here is: Whether Medtronic is protected by the pre*373emption doctrine when it had the option under federal law of selling two approved devices (for shorthand purposes, the good one and the not-so-good-one) but sold the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Gomez v. St. Jude Medical Daig Division Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2006
- Barbara E. Horn, of the Estate of Daniel Ray Horn, Deceased v. Thoratec CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2004
- Scott v. CIBA Vision Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1995
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.