Whenever any standard prescribed pursuant to section 360kk of this title with respect to an aspect of performance of an electronic product is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, any standard which is applicable to the same aspect of performance of such product and which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this part shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a requirement with respect to emission of radiation from electronic products procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a more restrictive standard than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.
Notes of Decisions
Schiffner v. Motorola, Inc., 697 N.E.2d 868 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998).
“” 21 U.S.C.A. § 360ss (West Supp. 1998). Based on these provisions, the Verb court held that the plaintiffs’ claims were preempted by the FDA.”
Verb v. Motorola, Inc., 672 N.E.2d 1287 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996).
“21 U.S.C.S. § 360ss (Law. Co-op. 1990). In the present case, plaintiffs’ complaint, without properly pleading allegations of an injury or damages as discussed below, centered on the lack of warnings as to the safety of and possible health risks caused by cellular telephones…”
Pinney v. Nokia, Inc., 248 F. Supp. 2d 452 (D. Maryland 2003).
“§§ 152 (notes), 414; 21 U.S.C. § 360ss. . Plaintiffs rely on Sprietsma for other reasons discussed later in this opinion.”
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.