Legal Opinion
Schouest v. Medtronic, Inc.
District Court, S.D. Texas
Decided March 24, 2014No. Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-203PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GREGG COSTA, District Judge.
Plaintiffs seeking to bring state law claims against the manufacturer of a medical device that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved must navigate a narrow path between two federal preemption doctrines. If the claims rely on state law that imposes duties different from or in addition to federal requirements, express preemption bars the claims. See Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312, 316, 128 S.Ct. 999, 169 L.Ed.2d 892 (2008). While state law claims that impose obligations parallel to federal requirements escape express…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Jones v. Rath Packing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- American Tobacco Co., Inc. v. GrinnellTexas Supreme Court · 1997
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Caplinger v. Medtronic, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015
- Mendez v. ShahDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2014
- Aaron v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2016
- Beavers-Gabriel v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, D. Hawaii · 2014
- Thorn v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, USA, Inc.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 2015
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.