Legal Opinion · Dissent

Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided February 20, 2008No. 06-179Published

1DissentJustice Ginsburg

The Medical Device Amendments, of 1976 (MDA or Act), 90 Stat. 539, as construed by the Court, cut deeply into a domain historically occupied by state law. The MDA’s preemption clause, 21 U. S. C. § 360k(a), the Court holds, spares medical device manufacturers from personal injury claims alleging flaws in a design or label once the application for the design or label has gained premarket approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); a state damages remedy, the Court instructs, persists only for claims “premised on a violation of FDA regulations.” Ante, at 330.1 I dissent from today’s…

2Cases cited40 opinions

  1. Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. United States v. Mead Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
  3. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
  4. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
  5. Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996

35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API