Legal Opinion
Worthy v. Collagen Corp.
Texas Supreme Court
Decided February 13, 1998No. 96-0675PublishedCited by 62 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HECHT, Justice.
The principal issue before us is whether the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 to the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act preempt this action against a manufacturer brought under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices — Consumer Protection Act for damages resulting from the injection of a collagen implant material that is a class III medical device under the Act and that has received premarketing approval from the federal Food and Drug Administration. To resolve the issue we must construe and apply the United States Supreme Court’s recent opinions in Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518…
2Cases cited53 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Gregg v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Marks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by62 opinions
- Creedmoor-Maha Water Supply Corp. v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2010
- Alton Bass v. Stryker CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2012
- Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006
- Reynolds v. MurphyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2006
- Goodlin v. Medtronic, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1999
57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.