Legal Opinion · Dissent

Niehoff v. Surgidev Corp.

Kentucky Supreme Court

Decided June 19, 1997No. 96-SC-0127-DGPublished

1Dissent

ERIC L. ISON, Special Justice,

dissenting.

Congress’ intent to preempt at least some state law is plain from the express language of 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a). The United States Supreme Court has made clear that some state common law damage claims are preempted by federal law. See, Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 511-519, 112 S.Ct. 2608, 2615-2618, 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992). The first task before this Court is to decide whether NiehofPs state product liability claims are within the scope of those claims Congress intended to preempt. The second inquiry is whether claims for violation of…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. M'culloch v. State of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
  2. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
  3. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
  4. Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  5. Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988

12 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