green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
3.6 score
“e do not believe the analysis can be said to have survived cipol- lone-”
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Moore v. Brunswick Bowling & Billiards Corp.
(2×)
But see Stamps v. Collagen Corp., 984 F.2d 1416, 1420 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 86 , 126 L.Ed.2d 54 (1993) (holding that existence of express preemption clause precludes reliance on implied preemption doctrine, without determining whether provision constituted a “reliable indicium of congressional intent”); American Agriculture Movement, Inc. v. Board of Trade, 977 F.2d 1147, 1154 (7th Cir.1992) (“Only if a statute is devoid of explicit preemptive language may we resort to either variant of implied preemption.”). 4 I find no such intent here.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Sowers v. Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc.
e do not believe the analysis can be said to have survived cipol- lone-
cited
Cited "see"
Blanchard v. Collagen Corp.
See Stamps v. Collagen Corp., 984 F.2d 1416, 1425 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 86 , 126 L.Ed.2d 54 (1993).
cited
Cited "see"
Mears v. Marshall
See Stamps v. Collagen Corp., 984 F2d 1416, 1421 (5th Cir), cert den_US_, 114 S Ct 86 , 126 L Ed 2d 54 (1993) (relying on Cipollone for interpretation of state “requirement” under MDA).
discussed
Cited "see"
Reiter v. Zimmer Inc.
See Stamps v. Collagen Corp., 984 F.2d 1416, 1424 (5th Cir.) (citing Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 385 , 112 S.Ct. 2031, 2038 , 119 L.Ed.2d 157 (1992)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 86 , 126 L.Ed.2d 54 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
Committee of Dental Amalgam Alloy Manufacturers v. Henry
See Stamps v. Collagen Corp., 984 F.2d 1416, 1421 (5th Cir.) (premarket approval procedure, applicable to all Class III devices, preempts state tort claims for defective design, inadequate warning and negligent failure to warn), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 86 , 126 L.Ed.2d 54 (1993); see also King v. Collagen Corp., 983 F.2d 1130, 1134-35 (1st Cir.1993) (approval of device’s labelling and packaging during Class III premarket approval process preempts state tort claims), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 84 , 126 L.Ed.2d 52 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ellen Mendes v. Medtronic, Inc.
Viewing section 306k(a) in light of this presumption against preemption, we have held that it expresses Congress’s intent to preempt certain common law claims because such claims may establish state “requirements.” King v. Collagen Corp., 983 F.2d at 1138 ; accord Stamps v. Collagen Corp., 984 F.2d 1416, 1420 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 86 , 126 L.Ed.2d 54 (1993); cf. CSX Transp., — U.S. at -, 113 S.Ct. at 1737 (discussing holding in Cipollone that “federal statute barring additional ‘requirement^] ... “imposed under state law” ’ pre-empts common-law claim…
discussed
Cited "see"
Mendes v. Medtronic, Inc.
Viewing section 306k(a) in light of this presumption against preemption, we have held that it expresses Congress's intent to preempt certain common law claims because such claims may establish state "requirements." King v. Collagen Corp., 983 F.2d at 1138 ; accord Stamps v. Collagen Corp., 984 F.2d 1416, 1420 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 86 (1993); cf. CSX Transp., 113 S. Ct. at 1737 (discussing holding in Cipollone that "federal statute barring additional `requirement[s] . . . `imposed under state law'' pre-empts common-law claims" (citation omitted)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Estate of LeMay Ex Rel. LeMay v. Eli Lilly & Co.
The MDA contains an express preemption provision which is as follows: (a) no State or political subdivision of a State may establish or continue in effect with respect to a device intended for human use any requirement- (1) which is different from, or in addition to, any requirement applicable under this chapter to the device, and (2) which relates to the safety or effectiveness of the device or to any other matter included in a requirement applicable to the device under this chapter. 21 U.S.C. § 360k; see also Stamps v. Collagen Corp., 984 F.2d 1416, 1420 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Berger v. Medtronic, Inc.
(See, Reiter v Zimmer, Inc., 830 F Supp 199 ; Fogal v Steinfeld, 163 Misc 2d 497 [Sklar, J.]; Michael v Shiley, Inc., 1994 WL 59349 [ED Pa]; see also, Stamps v Collagen Corp., 984 F2d 1416 [5th Cir], cert denied — US —, 114 S Ct 86 ; King v Collagen Corp., 983 F2d 1130 [1st Cir], cert denied — US —, 114 S Ct 84 ; Slater v Optical Radiation Corp., 961 F2d 1330 [7th Cir], cert denied — US —, 113 S Ct 327 .) The FDA has promulgated regulations implementing section 360k.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Ginochio v. Surgikos, Inc.
See also, Stamps v. Collagen Corp., 984 F.2d 1416, 1420-21 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 86 , 126 L.Ed.2d 54 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Charles MacDonald Et Ux and State of Louisiana, Etc. v. Monsanto Co., Dow Chemical Co.
(2×)
Co., 736 F.2d 1529 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1062 , 105 S.Ct. 545 , 83 L.Ed.2d 432 (1984) (holding that lack of direct conflict between the state and federal regulations compels a finding that FIFRA does not preempt state common law); see also Stamps v. Collagen Corp., 984 F.2d 1416, 1424-25 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 86 , 126 L.Ed.2d 54 (1993) (holding that the analysis used in Ferebee did not survive the Cipollone decision). 4 IV 10 For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the district court to deny summary judgment is REVERSED, and we REMAND for entry of j…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Green v. Dolsky
Class I devices, such as tongue depressors, present little or no threat to public health and are thus subject to only general controls on manufacturing. 21 U.S.C. § 360c(a)(1)(A); see also Stamps v. Collagen Corp., 984 F.2d 1416, 1418 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. ——, 114 S.Ct. 86 , 126 L.Ed.2d 54 *562 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
No. 93-5555
See also Stamps v. Collagen Corp., 984 F.2d 1416, 1421 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 86 , 126 L.Ed.2d 54 (1993); King v. Collagen Corp., 983 F.2d 1130, 1133 (1st Cir.1993), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 84 , 126 L.Ed.2d 52 (1993). 18 Gile contends that there cannot be express preemption unless Congress uses "the words 'common law' or something analogous" to indicate its intent to preempt such claims.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gile v. Optical Radiation Corporation
See also Stamps v. Collagen Corp., 984 F.2d 1416, 1421 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 86 , 126 L.Ed.2d 54 (1993); King v. Collagen Corp., 983 F.2d 1130, 1133 (1st Cir.1993), *543 ce rt. denied, — U.S.-, 114 S.Ct. 84 , 126 L.Ed.2d 52 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
CHARLES MacDONALD, ET UX and STATE OF LOUISIANA, Etc v. MONSANTO CO., ET AL
Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1062 , 105 S.Ct. 545 , 83 L.Ed.2d 432 (1984)(holding that lack of direct conflict between the state and federal regulations compels a finding that FIFRA does not preempt state common law); see also Stamps v. Collagen Corp., 984 F.2d 1416, 1424-25 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 86 , 126 L.Ed.2d 54 (1993) (holding that the analysis used in Ferebee did not survive the Cipollone decision).4 4 The dissent suggests that we have failed "to complete the preemption analysis mandated by Cipollone" because we do not address "whether the specific common law…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Harold Washington Party
v.
Democratic Party of Cook County, Illinois
v.
Democratic Party of Cook County, Illinois
92-1992.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 4, 1993.
Published
Citer courts: E.D. Pennsylvania (1)
Harold Washington Party et al.
v.
Democratic Party of Cook County, Illinois, et al.
No. 92-1992.
Supreme Court of United States.
October 4, 1993.
1
Appeal from the C. A. 7th Cir.
2
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 984 F. 2d 875.