Legal Opinion
Connelly v. Iolab Corp.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Decided August 20, 1996No. 78177PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HOLSTEIN, Chief Justice.
The question presented in this appeal is the extent to which the Medical Devices Amendment (MDA) of 1976, 21 U.S.C. § 360c, et seq., of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 301, et seq., preempts plaintiffs’ common law actions against the manufacturer of an artificial intraocular lens. The trial court granted summary judgment, holding that common law actions against the manufacturer for negligence, strict liability, failure to warn, failure to obtain informed consent, and fraud were preempted by the MDA. Following an opinion by the Missouri Court of Appeals,…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- M'culloch v. State of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- 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
- ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1993
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Baird v. American Medical OpticsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1998
- Worthy v. Collagen Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1998
- Ada M. Martin and Harold L. Martin v. Telectronics Pacing Systems, Inc. Tplc, Inc. D/B/A Telectronics Pacing Systems Telectronics Pty LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1997
- Budding v. SSM Healthcare SystemSupreme Court of Missouri · 2000
- Cooperative Home Care, Inc. v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 2017
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.