25 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 270,859 times 281 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts are not required "to credit a complaint's conclusory statements without reference to its factual context"
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 283,705 times 369 Legal Analyses
Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr
518 U.S. 470 (1996) Cited 2,486 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"
Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.
552 U.S. 312 (2008) Cited 1,068 times 62 Legal Analyses
Holding that a State’s “‘requirements’” “includ[e] [the state’s] common-law duties”
Bausch v. Stryker Corp.
630 F.3d 546 (7th Cir. 2010) Cited 660 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that tort law claims based on manufacturing defects were not impliedly preempted
Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.
44 Cal.3d 1103 (Cal. 1988) Cited 1,033 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff who suspects wrongdoing but is unaware of any specific facts establishing wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant, may not delay bringing an action until she discovers such facts or their legal significance
In re Medtronic, Inc., Sprint Fidelis Leads
623 F.3d 1200 (8th Cir. 2010) Cited 322 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding in medical-device context that potential additional warnings were "precisely the type of state requirement that is 'different from or in addition to' the federal requirement and therefore preempted" (quoting 21 U.S.C. § 360k)
Grisham v. Philip Morris U.S.A., Inc.
40 Cal.4th 623 (Cal. 2007) Cited 249 times
Holding a cigarette smoker's reliance on tobacco companies' misrepresentations of the addictive nature of cigarettes was unreasonable once she suspected she was addicted to cigarettes, as evidenced by her decision to join "Nicotine Anonymous"
Wolicki-Gables v. Arrow International, Inc.
634 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2011) Cited 161 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that medical device's pre-market approval “imposes specific requirements on it that are sufficient to preempt a state law claim”
Gutierrez v. Mofid
39 Cal.3d 892 (Cal. 1985) Cited 265 times
Holding when the patient's "'reasonably founded suspicions [have been aroused],' and [he] has actually 'become alerted to the necessity for investigation and pursuit of [his] remedies' the one-year period for suit begins"
Section 360k - State and local requirements respecting devices
21 U.S.C. § 360k Cited 1,053 times 21 Legal Analyses
Authorizing the FDA to determine the scope of the Medical Devices Amendments' pre-emption clause

Rhynes et al v. Stryker Corporation et al

25 Cited authorities

Holding that courts are not required "to credit a complaint's conclusory statements without reference to its factual context"

Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

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"

Holding that a State’s “‘requirements’” “includ[e] [the state’s] common-law duties”

Holding that tort law claims based on manufacturing defects were not impliedly preempted

Holding that a plaintiff who suspects wrongdoing but is unaware of any specific facts establishing wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant, may not delay bringing an action until she discovers such facts or their legal significance

Holding in medical-device context that potential additional warnings were "precisely the type of state requirement that is 'different from or in addition to' the federal requirement and therefore preempted" (quoting 21 U.S.C. § 360k)

Holding a cigarette smoker's reliance on tobacco companies' misrepresentations of the addictive nature of cigarettes was unreasonable once she suspected she was addicted to cigarettes, as evidenced by her decision to join "Nicotine Anonymous"

Holding that medical device's pre-market approval “imposes specific requirements on it that are sufficient to preempt a state law claim”

Holding when the patient's "'reasonably founded suspicions [have been aroused],' and [he] has actually 'become alerted to the necessity for investigation and pursuit of [his] remedies' the one-year period for suit begins"

Authorizing the FDA to determine the scope of the Medical Devices Amendments' pre-emption clause