§Why CasetextPricing

SOLUS INDUSTRIAL INNOVATIONS v. S.C.

Real Party in Interest, The People, Opening Brief on the Merits

46 Cited authorities

  1. Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr

    518 U.S. 470 (1996)   Cited 2,419 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"

  2. Wyeth v. Levine

    555 U.S. 555 (2009)   Cited 1,434 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. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.

    505 U.S. 504 (1992)   Cited 2,404 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

  4. English v. General Electric Co.

    496 U.S. 72 (1990)   Cited 1,317 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a tort arising from whistleblower retaliation at a nuclear facility was insufficiently related to radiological safety aspects in the facility's operation

  5. Altria Grp., Inc. v. Good

    555 U.S. 70 (2008)   Cited 638 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal law did not preempt common-law fraud claim against cigarette manufacturer based on advertising of light cigarettes

  6. Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Ass'n

    505 U.S. 88 (1992)   Cited 891 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "nonapproved state regulation of occupational safety and health issues for which a federal standard is in effect is impliedly preempted" by OSHA's standard

  7. 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

  8. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.

    20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 2,428 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"

  9. Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly

    533 U.S. 525 (2001)   Cited 506 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a ban on outdoor advertising of smokeless tobacco and cigars within one thousand feet of a school or playground violated the First Amendment

  10. Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine

    537 U.S. 51 (2002)   Cited 332 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Coast Guard's decision not to regulate propeller guards did not impliedly pre-empt petitioner's tort claims

  11. Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200   Cited 17,893 times   315 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting unlawful business practices

  12. Section 651 - Congressional statement of findings and declaration of purpose and policy

    29 U.S.C. § 651   Cited 1,488 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Noting the OSH Act arose from concern surrounding "personal injuries and illnesses arising out of work situations"

  13. Section 667 - State jurisdiction and plans

    29 U.S.C. § 667   Cited 181 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Providing for transfer of jurisdiction

  14. Section 3328 - Machinery and Equipment

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3328   Cited 1 times

    (a) All machinery and equipment: (1) shall be designed or engineered to safely sustain all reasonably anticipated loads in accordance with recognized engineering principles; and (2) shall not be used or operated under conditions of speeds, stresses, loads, or environmental conditions that are contrary to the manufacturer's recommendations or, where such recommendations are not available, the engineered design. (b) Machinery and equipment in service shall be inspected and maintained as recommended

  15. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,184 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or