7 Vermont opinions name it 1 courts 1914–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Vermont courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
cluster 745349green1 sentence2015See, e.g., In re Sofamor Danek Grp., Inc., 123 F.3d 394 , 403-04 (6th Cir. 1997) (holding that plaintiffs did not allege actual reliance on defendants’ misrepresentations — and thus could not rely on § 552 of the Second Restatement — where plaintiffs proffered only “fraud-on-the-market” theory, alleging that defendants’ negligent misrepresentations affected market prices, which induced plaintiffs to enter into certain transactions); Goldman Servs. | 1 | 1 |
In Re PSgreen1 sentence2002In re P.S., 167 Vt. 63, 67 , 702 A.2d 98, 100 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
Barrows v. Dugan's Estategreen1 sentence1919See Barrows v. Dugan’s Est., 88 Vt. 441, 444 , 92 Atl. 927 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr
green
1 sentence2008The claim that was preempted in Buckman was for “fraud on the FDA,” not failure to warn; the Court held that the presumption against preemption applies only when a claim implicates ‘“the historic primacy of state regulation of health and safety,’ ” which is not the ease when the claim arises from a federal statute. 531 U.S. at 347 -48 (quoting Medtronic, 518 U.S. at 485 ). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee
green
1 sentence2008The claim that was preempted in Buckman was for “fraud on the FDA,” not failure to warn; the Court held that the presumption against preemption applies only when a claim implicates ‘“the historic primacy of state regulation of health and safety,’ ” which is not the ease when the claim arises from a federal statute. 531 U.S. at 347 -48 (quoting Medtronic, 518 U.S. at 485 ). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
In re P.S.
green
1 sentence2002In re P.S., 167 Vt. 63, 67 , 702 A.2d 98, 100 (1997). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Matteson v. Lagace
neutral
1 sentence1924I. 223, 89 Atl. 713 , the same question was before the court for consideration as is now under discussion in the ease at bar. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Beaulieu v. Great Northern Railway Co.
green
2 sentences1919Co., 103 Minn. 47 , 114 N. W. 353 , 19 L. 1919Co., 103 Minn. 47 , 114 N. W. 353 , 19 L. | 1 | 1919–1919 |
E. E. Rice & Co. v. Kennedy
neutral
2 sentences1919Co., supra. In the former ease when the exception was sustained the judgment was usually reversed and the cause remanded, as in the French case; but under ■our present practice, when it is clearly apparent that the result on a second trial must be the same as on the first, following the holding in Rice & Co. v. Kennedy, 76 Vt. 380 , 57 Atl. 971 , we render such judgment as the trial court should have rendered, thereby saving to the parties the needless trouble and ■expense of a second trial. 1919Co., supra. In the former ease when the exception was sustained the judgment was usually reversed and the cause remanded, as in the French case; but under ■our present practice, when it is clearly apparent that the result on a second trial must be the same as on the first, following the holding in Rice & Co. v. Kennedy, 76 Vt. 380 , 57 Atl. 971 , we render such judgment as the trial court should have rendered, thereby saving to the parties the needless trouble and ■expense of a second trial. | 1 | 1919–1919 |
Field v. Campbell
green
2 sentences1914As was said in Field v. Campbell, 164 Ind. 389 , 72 N. E. 260 , 108 Am. 1914As was said in Field v. Campbell, 164 Ind. 389 , 72 N. E. 260 , 108 Am. | 1 | 1914–1914 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.