WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision barring state-law design-defect claims against generic drug makers that mirror failure-to-warn actions served a major setback to plaintiffs seeking damages for drug injuries.
WASHINGTON — In a victory to Oklahoma in its attempt to control out-of-state diversions of its groundwater, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a congressionally ratified interstate water rights pact does not preempt state laws limiting access to certain water resources.
The Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act preempts a Virginia law that would have allowed a decedent’s current wife to recover life insurance proceeds paid to the man’s ex-wife as the policy’s named beneficiary.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a divorced Virginia woman could not be forced to surrender the proceeds of a federal employee life insurance policy that she received as her ex-husband’s named beneficiary.
WASHINGTON – A long running battle between a Minnesota frequent flyer and an airline carrier has landed before the U.S. Supreme Court, giving the justices yet another chance to weigh in on whether a federal law preempts a state law-based lawsuit.
A tortious interference suit over contractual obligations arising under a pension plan was not completely preempted by ERISA, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing a dismissal.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to review a federal appeals court ruling striking down portions of Alabama’s immigration law, one of the most restrictive in the nation.
WASHINGTON – A dispute between two states over water rights has turned into one of the most factually and legally complex cases before the U.S. Supreme Court this term. During oral arguments Tuesday in Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann, the justices had to wrangle with principles of federal preemption, constitutional interpretation and contract law – all to decide whether a Texas state agency has the right to divert water from an Oklahoma groundwater source.
Published: March 29, 2013
Tags: Medical Device Amendments to the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, negligence per se, preemption, product liability
State law allowed a knee replacement patient to maintain a parallel claim for negligence per se based on the violation of a federal regulation in the manufacture of his implant, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled.
Published: March 28, 2013
Tags: LASIK surgery, Medical Device Amendments to the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, off-label use, preemption, product liability
Eye surgery patients could not pursue product liability claims based solely on their doctors’ “off-label” use of laser medical devices to perform their procedures, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in affirming a dismissal.