§Why CasetextPricing

Association des Eleveurs de Canards et d Oies du Quebec et al v. Kamala J Harris et al

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Federal Preemption Claim 117

35 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 220,228 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

  2. United States v. Mead Corp.

    533 U.S. 218 (2001)   Cited 2,621 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Customs classification ruling "has no claim to judicial deference under Chevron " but can "claim respect according to its persuasiveness"

  3. Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr

    518 U.S. 470 (1996)   Cited 2,452 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the presence of a state-law damages remedy for violations of FDA requirements does not impose an additional requirement upon medical device manufacturers but "merely provides another reason for manufacturers to comply with . . . federal law"

  4. Wyeth v. Levine

    555 U.S. 555 (2009)   Cited 1,463 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

  5. U.S. v. Stevens

    559 U.S. 460 (2010)   Cited 1,213 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding law unconstitutional under First Amendment where "impermissible applications ... far outnumber[ed] any permissible ones"

  6. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.

    505 U.S. 504 (1992)   Cited 2,433 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an express warranty was not a "requirement ... imposed under State law" because the obligation was imposed by the warrantor

  7. Altria Grp., Inc. v. Good

    555 U.S. 70 (2008)   Cited 659 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal law did not preempt common-law fraud claim against cigarette manufacturer based on advertising of light cigarettes

  8. Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC

    544 U.S. 431 (2005)   Cited 562 times   12 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

  9. Pacific Gas Elec. v. Energy Resources Comm'n

    461 U.S. 190 (1983)   Cited 1,186 times
    Holding "that the promotion of nuclear power is not to be accomplished ‘at all costs’ "

  10. Fla. Avocado Growers v. Paul

    373 U.S. 132 (1963)   Cited 1,576 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

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 335,493 times   160 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 451 - Congressional statement of findings

    21 U.S.C. § 451   Cited 104 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In 21 U.S.C. § 451, Congress bases the entire PPIA on its finding that "[u]nwholesome, adulterated, or misbranded poultry products" hurt people and destroy markets for poultry.

  13. Section 467e - Non-Federal jurisdiction of federally regulated matters; prohibition of additional or different requirements for establishments with inspection services and as to marking, labeling, packaging, and ingredients; recordkeeping and related requirements; concurrent jurisdiction over distribution for human food purposes of adulterated or misbranded and imported articles; other matters

    21 U.S.C. § 467e   Cited 51 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that state may not impose labeling requirements in addition to or different than federal requirements

  14. Section 452 - Congressional declaration of policy

    21 U.S.C. § 452   Cited 25 times
    Providing for the inspection of poultry and poultry products to prevent misbranding and adulteration

  15. Section 25982 - Prohibited sale

    Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 25982   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Enacting California's foie gras ban in 2004, with July 1, 2012 effective date

  16. Section 25980 - Definitions

    Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 25980   Cited 8 times

    For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings: (a) A bird includes, but is not limited to, a duck or goose. (b) Force feeding a bird means a process that causes the bird to consume more food than a typical bird of the same species would consume voluntarily. Force feeding methods include, but are not limited to, delivering feed through a tube or other device inserted into the bird's esophagus. Ca. Health and Saf. Code § 25980 Added by Stats 2004 ch 904 (SB 1520), s

  17. Section 25981 - Prohibited force feeding

    Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 25981   Cited 6 times

    A person may not force feed a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal size, or hire another person to do so. Ca. Health and Saf. Code § 25981 Added by Stats 2004 ch 904 (SB 1520), s 1, eff. 1/1/2005, op. 7/1/2012.

  18. Section 381.1 - Definitions

    9 C.F.R. § 381.1   Cited 5 times   4 Legal Analyses

    (a) For the purposes of the regulations in this part, unless otherwise required by the context, the singular form shall also import the plural and the masculine form shall also import the feminine, and vice versa. (b) For the purposes of such regulations, unless otherwise required by the context, the following terms shall be construed, respectively, to mean: Acceptable. "Acceptable" means suitable for the purpose intended and acceptable to the Administrator. Act. "Act" means the Poultry Products

  19. Section 381.156 - Poultry meat content standards for certain poultry products

    9 C.F.R. § 381.156

    Poultry products with labeling terminology as set forth in Table I shall comply with the specifications for percent light meat and percent dark meat set forth in said table. Table I Label terminology Percent light meat Percent dark meat Natural proportions 50-65 50-35. Light or white meat 100 0. Dark meat 0 100. Light and dark meat 51-65 49-35. Dark and light meat 35-49 65-51. Mostly white meat 66 or more 34 or less. Mostly dark meat 34 or less 66 or more. 9 C.F.R. §381.156 37 FR 9706, May 16, 1972

  20. Section 381.168 - Maximum percent of skin in certain poultry products

    9 C.F.R. § 381.168

    The poultry products listed in Table V shall have not more than the percent of skin specified in the table, when raw and when cooked. Table V Product name Percent skin Raw Cooked Boneless Turkey Breast or Boneless Turkey Breast Roll 14 Boneless Turkey Thigh or Boneless Turkey Thigh Roll 8 Boneless Turkey or Turkey Roll 15 Boneless Chicken Breast or Boneless Chicken Breast Roll 18 20 Boneless Chicken or Chicken Roll 20 25 9 C.F.R. §381.168