§Why CasetextPricing

Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Purdue Pharma, L.P.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re:

57 Cited authorities

  1. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams

    482 U.S. 386 (1987)   Cited 11,234 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the rule that a federal defense does not suffice to show that a claim arises under federal law applies "even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue"

  2. Franchise Tax Bd. v. Laborers Vacation Trust

    463 U.S. 1 (1983)   Cited 10,439 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a preemption defense even where "both parties admit that the defense is the only question truly at issue in the case"

  3. Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg.

    545 U.S. 308 (2005)   Cited 3,217 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Holding "that the national interest in providing a federal forum for federal tax litigation is sufficiently substantial to support the exercise of federal-question jurisdiction."

  4. Empire Healthchoice v. McVeigh

    547 U.S. 677 (2006)   Cited 1,714 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the federal government's "overwhelming interest in attracting able workers to the federal workforce" and "in the health and welfare of the federal workers upon whom it relies to carry out its functions" was insufficient to transform a "state-court-initiated tort litigation" into a "federal case"

  5. 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

  6. Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc. v. Thompson

    478 U.S. 804 (1986)   Cited 3,525 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that private actors have no federal cause of action for a violation of the Federal Drug and Cosmetic Act

  7. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp.

    486 U.S. 800 (1988)   Cited 3,127 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the appeal belonged before the regional circuit because the claims did not arise under patent law

  8. In re Am. Med. Sys., Inc.

    75 F.3d 1069 (6th Cir. 1996)   Cited 1,052 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that design and manufacturing differences across ten different models of the same product meant potentially varying results on strict liability, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, and failure to warn claims

  9. Gafford v. General Elec. Co.

    997 F.2d 150 (6th Cir. 1993)   Cited 1,124 times
    Holding that technically deficient notices of removal can be cured by subsequent filings

  10. Eastman v. Marine Mechanical Corp.

    438 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2006)   Cited 525 times
    Holding that state wrongful termination claim relying on federal statutes as source of public policy did not raise substantial federal question supporting removal jurisdiction because there would be a dramatic shift of litigation to federal courts and there was no disputed interpretation of a federal law at stake

  11. Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1332   Cited 111,364 times   572 Legal Analyses
    Holding district court has jurisdiction over action between diverse citizens "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000"

  12. Section 1331 - Federal question

    28 U.S.C. § 1331   Cited 97,409 times   134 Legal Analyses
    Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

  13. Section 1441 - Removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1441   Cited 50,029 times   149 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[a]ny civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the ... laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties.”

  14. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 34,931 times   1234 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"

  15. Section 1447 - Procedure after removal generally

    28 U.S.C. § 1447   Cited 33,108 times   110 Legal Analyses
    Holding that with exceptions not relevant here, "[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise"

  16. Section 1404 - Change of venue

    28 U.S.C. § 1404   Cited 28,366 times   184 Legal Analyses
    Granting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR

  17. Section 1446 - Procedure for removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1446   Cited 21,767 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim

  18. Section 1001 - Congressional findings and declaration of policy

    29 U.S.C. § 1001   Cited 20,521 times   59 Legal Analyses
    Noting that ERISA was enacted “to protect ... employee benefit plans and their beneficiaries”

  19. Section 185 - Suits by and against labor organizations

    29 U.S.C. § 185   Cited 14,537 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Granting federal district courts jurisdiction over breach of contract claims arising out of collective bargaining contracts

  20. Section 360k - State and local requirements respecting devices

    21 U.S.C. § 360k   Cited 1,025 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing the FDA to determine the scope of the Medical Devices Amendments' pre-emption clause