Legal Opinion
Stengel v. Medtronic, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided April 16, 2012No. 10-17755PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by Judge WALLACE; Dissent by Judge NOONAN.
OPINION
WALLACE, Senior Circuit Judge:
Richard and Mary Lou Stengel brought several state causes of action in Arizona state court against Medtronic Incorporated (Medtronic) for injuries sustained by Richard Stengel (Stengel) from his use of a pain pump manufactured by Medtronic. Medtronic timely removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The district court dismissed the Stengels’ claims as preempted by federal law and the Stengels appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
I
Medtronic’s…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Lee v. City Of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal CommitteeSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Richard Stengel v. Medtronic IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- Coleman v. Medtronic, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2014
- Richard Stengel v. Medtronic IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- Coleman v. MedtronicCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Joseph Higginbottom and Jodi Higginbottom, individually as heirs; and Joseph Higginbottom, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Anthony Higginbottom v. Dexcom, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 2026
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.