21 U.S.C. § 377
Revision of United States Pharmacopoeia; development of analysis and mechanical and physical tests
The Secretary, in carrying into effect the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.], is authorized on and after
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 2015–2015 · leading case: Angeles v. Medtronic, Inc., 863 N.W.2d 404 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015).
Angeles v. Medtronic, Inc., 863 N.W.2d 404 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). “*419 Thus, to the extent that appellants’ failure-to-warn claim is based on Medtronic’s failure to warn the FDA, we conclude that this claim is not expressly preempted.”
Paul v. Angeles, (A14-1149), Charlene Mead, (A14-1150), Charles Starovasnik, Jr., (A14-1151), Trudy Marse, (A14-1152), Rebecca Manuel, (A14-1153), Claude Davenport, (A14-1154) v. Medtronic, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). “Thus, to the extent that appellants’ failure-to-warn claim is based on Medtronic’s failure to warn the FDA, we conclude that this claim is not expressly preempted.”
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.