Dowhal v. Smithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcare
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KENNARD, Acting C. J.
Plaintiff filed this action to challenge the failure of defendants to place health warnings mandated by California’s Proposition 65 on products containing nicotine sold over the counter as aids to stop smoking. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants, ruling that in this setting the requirements of Proposition 65 were impliedly preempted by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) (21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq.). The Court of Appeal reversed; we granted review.
We conclude: (1) Notwithstanding language in the FDCA exempting Proposition 65 from the…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- English v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Maryland v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2005
- Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control District v. California Public Employment Relations BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
- Pacific Lumber Co. v. State Water Resources Control BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.California Supreme Court · 2005
- Viva! International Voice for Animals v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2007
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.