Mut. Pharm. Co. v. Bartlett
Supreme Court of the United States
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Alito
*475We must decide whether federal law pre-empts the New Hampshire design-defect claim under which respondent Karen Bartlett recovered damages from petitioner Mutual Pharmaceutical, the manufacturer of sulindac, a generic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). New Hampshire law imposes a duty on manufacturers to ensure that the drugs they market are not unreasonably unsafe, and a drug's safety is evaluated by reference to both its chemical properties and the adequacy of its warnings. Because Mutual was unable to change sulindac's composition as a matter of both federal law and basic…
Also in this document: Dissent · Breyer; Dissent · Sotomayor.
2Cases cited58 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- M'culloch v. State of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by251 opinions
- Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 2018
- Gibbons v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019
- Safe Streets Alliance v. HickenlooperCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017
- Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. AlbrechtSupreme Court of the United States · 2019
- Leslie Smith v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2014
246 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.