§Why CasetextPricing

S.F., as Parent and Natural Guardian of S.E.F., an Infant v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company et al

RESPONSE in Support re MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss

15 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Mut. Pharm. Co. v. Bartlett

    570 U.S. 472 (2013)   Cited 415 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"

  3. Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.

    96 N.Y.2d 222 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 396 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that handgun manufacturers do not owe a duty of reasonable care in the marketing and distribution of their handguns to persons injured or killed through the use of illegally obtained handguns, but leaving open the question of retailers' liability

  4. Hymowitz v. Lilly Co.

    73 N.Y.2d 487 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 208 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that relaxation of the traditional product identification requirement in tort law to provide a forum to innocent victims of the drug DES was not a "clearly excessive" burden "in relation to the putative local benefits" and, hence, was not violative of the Commerce Clause

  5. Semper v. N.Y. Methodist Hosp.

    786 F. Supp. 2d 566 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)   Cited 70 times
    Finding state law tortious interference claim based on CBA, and specifically the breach of contract element, preempted by Section 301

  6. Pelman v. McDonald's Corporation

    237 F. Supp. 2d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)   Cited 75 times
    Holding that omissions were not deceptive if "a consumer could . . . reasonably obtain such information" from sources other than defendants

  7. Desabio v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.

    817 F. Supp. 2d 197 (W.D.N.Y. 2011)   Cited 18 times
    Dismissing state tort law claims as preempted where plaintiff alleged no violation of federal law

  8. Simpson v. California Pizza Kitchen, Inc.

    989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013)   Cited 10 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the plaintiff-consumer failed to establish "increased risk of harm"

  9. DaSilva v. American Tobacco Company

    175 Misc. 2d 424 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997)   Cited 14 times
    Rejecting market-share liability where plaintiffs could identify brands

  10. Brenner v. Am. Cyanamid Co.

    263 A.D.2d 165 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting market-share liability where "the finished product that was used by consumers . . . was not fungible"

  11. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,077 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

  12. Section 170.30 - Eligibility for classification as generally recognized as safe (GRAS)

    21 C.F.R. § 170.30   Cited 11 times   7 Legal Analyses
    In 21 C.F.R. § 170.30, the FDA establishes how a food additive may be classified as GRAS and notes, in 21 C.F.R. § 182.1(a) and (d), that "[i]t is impracticable to list all substances that are [GRAS] for their intended use" but that many substances that are GRAS "are listed in this part."

  13. Section 184.1866 - High fructose corn syrup

    21 C.F.R. § 184.1866   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) High fructose corn syrup, a sweet, nutritive saccharide mixture containing either approximately 42 or 55 percent fructose, is prepared as a clear aqueous solution from high dextrose-equivalent corn starch hydrolysate by partial enzymatic conversion of glucose (dextrose) to fructose using an insoluble glucose isomerase enzyme preparation described in § 184.1372 . The product containing more than 50 percent fructose (dry weight) is prepared through concentration of the fructose portion of the mixture

  14. Section 184.1 - Substances added directly to human food affirmed as generally recognized as safe (GRAS)

    21 C.F.R. § 184.1   Cited 2 times

    (a) The direct human food ingredients listed in this part have been reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration and affirmed to be generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for the purposes and under the conditions prescribed. The regulations in this part shall sufficiently describe each ingredient to identify the characteristics of the ingredient that has been affirmed as GRAS and to differentiate it from other possible versions of the ingredient that have not been affirmed as GRAS. Ingredients affirmed