Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr
Supreme Court of the United States
1Judgment of the CourtJustice Stevens
Congress enacted the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, in the words of the statute’s preamble, “to provide for the safety and effectiveness of medical devices intended for human use.” 90 Stat. 539. The question presented is whether that statute pre-empts a state common-law negligence action against the manufacturer of an allegedly defective medical device. Specifically, we must consider whether Lora Lohr, who was injured when her pacemaker failed, may rely on Florida common law to recover damages from Med-tronic, Inc., the manufacturer of the device.
*475HH
Throughout our history the several…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Hines v. DavidowitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2,227 opinions
- Hill v. ColoradoSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Wyeth v. LevineSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Ramos v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 2020
- Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal CommitteeSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
2,222 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.