Legal Opinion
Angeles v. Medtronic, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided April 20, 2015No. Nos. A14-1149, A14-1150, A14-1151, A14-1152, A14-1153, A14-1154PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CONNOLLY, Judge.
In these consolidated appeals, appellants challenge the dismissal of their claims arising out of respondents’ advertising and promotion of a medical device that was used and allegedly caused injury to appellants during spinal surgeries. Appellants argue that the district court erred by (1) dismissing as expressly or impliedly preempted by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) their claims for negligence, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and violation of state consumer-protection statutes; and (2) dismissing their fraud claims for failure to plead with…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- 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
- In Re Medtronic, Inc., Sprint Fidelis LeadsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2010
- Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- In re Gen. Motors LLCDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois · 2018
- Wright v. Capella Univ., Inc.District Court, D. Maine · 2019
- Barclay v. iFit Health & Fitness Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2022
- Chen v. Target CorporationDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2022
- Doe v. Mower County Health and Human Services Office of Child SupportDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2019
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.