§Why CasetextPricing

In re Roundup Products Liability Litigation

REPLY

41 Cited authorities

  1. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell

    538 U.S. 408 (2003)   Cited 2,669 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an award of $145 million in punitive damages on a $1 million compensatory verdict violated due process

  2. Wyeth v. Levine

    555 U.S. 555 (2009)   Cited 1,432 times   101 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the FDA's drug labeling judgments pursuant to the FDCA did not obstacle preempt state law products liability claims

  3. Arizona v. United States

    567 U.S. 387 (2012)   Cited 888 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding a state law that "authoriz[ed] state officers to decide whether an alien should be detained for being removable" was conflict preempted because it "violates the principle that the removal process is entrusted to the discretion of the Federal Government"

  4. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee

    531 U.S. 341 (2001)   Cited 1,184 times   80 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal drug and medical device laws pre-empted a state tort-law claim based on failure to properly communicate with the FDA

  5. Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co.

    529 U.S. 861 (2000)   Cited 787 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding the absence of an express pre-emption clause “does not bar the ordinary working of conflict pre-emption principles”

  6. Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC

    544 U.S. 431 (2005)   Cited 549 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a preemption clause barring state laws "in addition to or different" from a federal Act does not interfere with an "equivalent" state provision

  7. Mut. Pharm. Co. v. Bartlett

    570 U.S. 472 (2013)   Cited 415 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding "state-law design-defect claims that turn on the adequacy of a drug's warnings are pre-empted by federal law under PLIVA"

  8. Fla. Avocado Growers v. Paul

    373 U.S. 132 (1963)   Cited 1,567 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding federal regulation concerning maturity of avocados did not preempt California regulation, where it was not impossible for growers to comply with both regulations

  9. Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.

    35 Cal.4th 797 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 1,241 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[r]esolution of the statute of limitations issue is normally a question of fact."

  10. Weisgram v. Marley Co.

    528 U.S. 440 (2000)   Cited 348 times
    Holding that a district court, when considering post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law, may disregard "testimony erroneously admitted"

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,543 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 26,638 times   254 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard

  13. Section 314.70 - Supplements and other changes to an approved NDA

    21 C.F.R. § 314.70   Cited 353 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Defining "major changes" as those "requiring supplement submission and approval prior to distribution of the product"

  14. Section 168.22 - Advertising of unregistered pesticides, unregistered uses of registered pesticides and FIFRA section 24(c) registrations

    40 C.F.R. § 168.22   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) FIFRA sections 12(a)(1) (A) and (B) make it unlawful for any person to "offer for sale" any pesticide if it is unregistered, or if claims made for it as part of its distribution or sale differ substantially from any claim made for it as part of the statement required in connection with its registration under FIFRA section 3. EPA interprets these provisions as extending to advertisements in any advertising medium to which pesticide users or the general public have access. (b) EPA regards it as