Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 15 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from W.W. Vincent & Co. v. First Colony Life Insurance.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | W.W. Vincent & Co. v. First Colony Life Insurance Anchor | green | “does the bartlett/mensing precedent require the dismissal on federal preemption grounds of an illinois common law cause of action for fraudulent concealment, alleging concealment or withholding of alleged design or manufacturing defects, lack of safety, or other unreasonably hig…” | 3 |
| 2 | Sarah Speed v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | green | “despite the 'catch-22' dilemma” | 3 |
| 3 | Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co. | green | “does the bartlett/mensing precedent require the dismissal on federal preemption grounds of an illinois common law cause of action for strict product liability/design defect, alleging unreasonable dangerousness in the design or manufacture of a generic drug (commonly known as pro…” | 3 |
| 4 | Hassett v. Dafoe | green | “we agree with plaintiff that until post-act claims are subjected to a thorough pre-emption analysis, dismissal of those failure to warn claims is premature.” | 3 |
| 5 | In re Reglan/Metoclopramide Litigation | green | “we decline to find post-act claims pre-empted” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.