Legal Opinion
Mullin v. Guidant Corp.
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided May 12, 2009No. AC 29829PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GRUENDEL, J.
The plaintiffs, Leslie Mullin and Vincent Mullin, appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismissing their product liability action. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly concluded that their two count complaint was preempted by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, 21 U.S.C. § 360c et seq. (MDA). We agree with the court that the plaintiffs’ action is preempted by federal law. The court, however, improperly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Therefore, although the defendant, Guidant Corporation, nevertheless…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- English v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Wyeth v. LevineSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Lynn v. Haybuster Manufacturing, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Metcalf v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2019
- Mullin v. GUIDANT CORPORATIONSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
- Mullin v. Guidant Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2009