53 Cited authorities

  1. Wyeth v. Levine

    555 U.S. 555 (2009)   Cited 1,435 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
  2. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee

    531 U.S. 341 (2001)   Cited 1,188 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
  3. Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing

    564 U.S. 604 (2011)   Cited 749 times   143 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state tort law that required generic drug manufacturers to provide adequate warning labels was preempted where federal law required manufacturers to use the same labels as their brand-name counterparts
  4. Mut. Pharm. Co. v. Bartlett

    570 U.S. 472 (2013)   Cited 416 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"
  5. Reiter v. Cooper

    507 U.S. 258 (1993)   Cited 722 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding district court has discretion “either to retain jurisdiction or ... to dismiss the case”
  6. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.

    20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 2,434 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for an act to be "unfair," it must "threaten" a violation of law or "violate the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law"
  7. Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick

    514 U.S. 280 (1995)   Cited 628 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a suspended Safety Act standard regarding tractor-trailer air brakes did not preempt common law tort actions
  8. Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A.

    691 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 649 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "district court's decision to incorporate by reference documents into complaint shall be reviewed for an abuse of discretion"
  9. Hines v. Davidowitz

    312 U.S. 52 (1941)   Cited 2,188 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Alien Registration Act of 1940 preempted Pennsylvania's alien registration requirements
  10. Clorox Co. Puerto Rico v. Proctor Gamble

    228 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2000)   Cited 377 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court may consider a document "integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint, even though not attached to the complaint" (quoting Shaw v. Digit. Equip. Corp., 82 F.3d 1194, 1220 (1st Cir. 1996) )
  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 348,416 times   930 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
  12. Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200   Cited 17,925 times   315 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting unlawful business practices
  13. Section 17500 - Untrue or misleading advertising

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500   Cited 2,674 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Requiring action that originated in California to effect consumers in another state
  14. Section 301 - Short title

    21 U.S.C. § 301   Cited 2,430 times   48 Legal Analyses

    This chapter may be cited as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 21 U.S.C. § 301 June 25, 1938, ch. 675, §1, 52 Stat. 1040. STATUTORY NOTES AND RELATED SUBSIDIARIES EFFECTIVE DATE; POSTPONEMENT IN CERTAIN CASES Act June 23, 1939, ch. 242, §§1, 2, 53 Stat. 853, 854, provided that:"[SEC. 1] (a) The effective date of the following provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is hereby postponed until January 1, 1940: Sections 402(c) [342(c) of this title]; 403(e)(1) [343(e)(1) of this

  15. Section 355 - New drugs

    21 U.S.C. § 355   Cited 2,252 times   340 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to change the date on which an ANDA may be approved if "either party to the action failed to reasonably cooperate in expediting the action"
  16. Section 331 - Prohibited acts

    21 U.S.C. § 331   Cited 1,518 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the sale of adulterated foods
  17. Section 352 - Misbranded drugs and devices

    21 U.S.C. § 352   Cited 740 times   73 Legal Analyses
    Setting labeling requirements for drug products
  18. Section 333 - Penalties

    21 U.S.C. § 333   Cited 439 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Defining civil and criminal penalties for violations of Section 331
  19. Section 393 - Food and Drug Administration

    21 U.S.C. § 393   Cited 182 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Defining the FDA's mission
  20. Section 314.70 - Supplements and other changes to an approved NDA

    21 C.F.R. § 314.70   Cited 356 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Defining "major changes" as those "requiring supplement submission and approval prior to distribution of the product"
  21. Section 314.50 - Content and format of an NDA

    21 C.F.R. § 314.50   Cited 150 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the proprietary nature of DSD and SP specifications by requiring that each ANDA applicant provide its own distinct specifications
  22. Section 314.3 - Definitions

    21 C.F.R. § 314.3   Cited 147 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Defining "reference listed drug"
  23. Section 10.30 - Citizen petition

    21 C.F.R. § 10.30   Cited 140 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Describing the requirements for filing a citizens' petition
  24. Section 314.105 - Approval of an NDA and an ANDA

    21 C.F.R. § 314.105   Cited 94 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that a "tentative" approval is the same as a final approval with a delayed effective date
  25. Section 314.125 - Refusal to approve an NDA

    21 C.F.R. § 314.125   Cited 42 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Requiring FDA to reject application when proposed labeling is "false or misleading in any particular"
  26. Section 314.126 - Adequate and well-controlled studies

    21 C.F.R. § 314.126   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that among the characteristics of "[a]n adequate and well-controlled study" is that "[a]dequate measures are taken to minimize bias on the part of the subjects, observers, and analysts of the data. The protocol and report of the study should describe the procedures used to accomplish this, such as blinding"