Legal Opinion
Farm Raised Salmon Cases
California Supreme Court
Decided February 11, 2008No. S147171PublishedCited by 150 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MORENO, J.
Plaintiffs filed a class and representative action alleging that various grocery stores violated state law by selling artificially colored farmed salmon without disclosing to their customers the use of color additives. Defendants successfully demurred in the trial court, arguing the action was preempted by section 337(a) of title 21 of the United States Code, a provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) (21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq.). The Court of Appeal affirmed the resulting judgment of dismissal.
We granted review to decide whether plaintiffs’ action was…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. PaulSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- 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
- Freightliner Corp. v. MyrickSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by150 opinions
- Reid v. Johnson & Johnson & McNeil Nutritionals, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- Shaw v. County of Santa CruzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- James Kroessler v. Cvs Health CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- Hawran v. HixsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Chacanaca v. QUAKER OATS COMPANYDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2010
145 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.