15 U.S.C. § 1460

Savings provisions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to repeal, invalidate, or supersede—(a) the Federal Trade Commission Act [15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.] or any statute defined therein as an antitrust Act;(b) the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.]; or(c) the Federal Hazardous Substances Labeling Act [15 U.S.C. 1261 et seq.].(Pub. L. 89–755, § 11, Nov. 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 1302.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Federal Trade Commission Act, referred to in text, is act Sept. 26, 1914, ch. 311, 38 Stat. 717, which is classified generally to subchapter I (§ 41 et seq.) of chapter 2 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 58 of this title and Tables.

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, referred to in text, is act June 25, 1938, ch. 675, 52 Stat. 1040, which is classified generally to chapter 9 (§ 301 et seq.) of Title 21, Food and Drugs, For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 301 of Title 21 and Tables.

The Federal Hazardous Substances Labeling Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 86–613, July 12, 1960, 74 Stat. 372, which is classified generally to chapter 30 (§ 1261 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1261 of this title and Tables.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2021 · leading case: Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519 (1977).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519 (1977). · cites it 2× “" 15 U. S. C. § 1460 ; S. Rep. No. 1186, 89th Cong.”

Vargas v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 30 F. Supp. 3d 945 (C.D. Cal. 2014). “15 U.S.C. § 1460 (a); Ferrell, 539 F.3d at 1190 ; Enuke, 2011 WL 11651341 at *6.”

Grocery Mfrs. of Am., Inc. v. Gerace, 581 F. Supp. 658 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). “While the FPLA contains an express preemption provision, 15 U.S.C. § 1460 , plaintiff does not suggest that the New York regulations are preempted under that statute.”

Fletcher v. Pub. Fin. Co. of Alabama, 429 So. 2d 1039 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981). “Fletcher contends that his default on the note occurred initially within the one-year statute of limitations period under 15 U.S.C. § 1460 (e). Thus, his counterclaim for violation of the TILA “relates back” to the first instance of default under Rule 13(c), A.”

Gen. Mills, Inc. v. Jones, 530 F.2d 1317 (9th Cir. 1975). · cites it 2× “* * * Nothing contained in * * * [the FPLA] shall be construed to repeal, invalidate, or supersede— (a) the Federal Trade Commission Act or any statute defined therein as an antitrust Act; (b) the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; or (c) the Federal Hazardous Substances…”

Young v. L'oreal USA, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2021). “Further, while it is true that the FPLA’s savings provision states that it is not intended to “repeal, invalidate, or supersede,” inter alia, the FDCA, 15 U.S.C. § 1460 , this provision does not cancel the express language of the FPLA preempting state law that would require…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.