Brandt v. Marshall Animal Clinic
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CRIPPEN, Judge.
We must determine on this appeal whether federal regulation of the preparation and sale of animal vaccines preempts use by the Minnesota courts of common law remedies otherwise available to farm operators alleging economic loss suffered as a result of defective vaccines. Acknowledging that federal agency authority may preempt state regulation of the preparation and sale of animal vaccines, respondents Randy and Patricia Brandt argue that the agency authority does not preempt state courts from deciding common law liability disputes. The trial court refused a summary…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. De La CuestaSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Maryland v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 15,330 Richard Symens Joyce Symens v. Smithkline Beecham Corporation, Ivan Sjovall v. Smithkline Beecham CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1998
- Lynnbrook Farms v. Smithkline Beecham CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1996
- Garrelts v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 1996
- Cooper v. United Vaccines, Inc.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2000
- Symens v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.District Court, D. South Dakota · 1997
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.