19 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 251,689 times 279 Legal Analyses
Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 265,662 times 364 Legal Analyses
Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "
Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.
552 U.S. 312 (2008) Cited 1,030 times 62 Legal Analyses
Holding that a State’s “‘requirements’” “includ[e] [the state’s] common-law duties”
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro
178 F.3d 231 (4th Cir. 1999) Cited 6,537 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that First Amendment rights of an off-duty officer communicating about concealed weapons were sufficiently established by precedent regarding off-duty officer's entertainment performances
Presley v. City of Charlottesvile
464 F.3d 480 (4th Cir. 2006) Cited 1,976 times
Holding that a pre-deprivation opportunity to be heard is typically required, unless there is a need for quick action by the State or pre-deprivation proceedings are impractical
Funk v. Stryker Corp.
631 F.3d 777 (5th Cir. 2011) Cited 844 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding court lacked jurisdiction to consider district court's denial of plaintiff's postjudgment motions because he did not file an amended, or separate, notice of appeal
Bausch v. Stryker Corp.
630 F.3d 546 (7th Cir. 2010) Cited 629 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that tort law claims based on manufacturing defects were not impliedly preempted
Lloyd v. General Motors Corp.
397 Md. 108 (Md. 2007) Cited 490 times
Holding that plaintiffs who had alleged that they purchased cars with defective seatbacks were entitled to benefit of the bargain damages
Wolicki-Gables v. Arrow International, Inc.
634 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2011) Cited 157 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”
In re Medtronic, Inc. Sprint Fedelis Leads Prods.
592 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (D. Minn. 2009) Cited 123 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that claims for breach of an express warranty of a medical device's safety would require a jury to determine that the device was unsafe
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 344,767 times 920 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
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
Section 3-2A-02 - Exclusiveness of procedures
Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-2A-02 Cited 66 times
Stating that a malpractice claim "may not be brought or pursued in any court of [Maryland] except in accordance with this [Act]"

Smith et al v. St. Jude Medical Cardiac Rhythm Management Division et al

19 Cited authorities

Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

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

Holding that First Amendment rights of an off-duty officer communicating about concealed weapons were sufficiently established by precedent regarding off-duty officer's entertainment performances

Holding that a pre-deprivation opportunity to be heard is typically required, unless there is a need for quick action by the State or pre-deprivation proceedings are impractical

Holding court lacked jurisdiction to consider district court's denial of plaintiff's postjudgment motions because he did not file an amended, or separate, notice of appeal

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

Holding that plaintiffs who had alleged that they purchased cars with defective seatbacks were entitled to benefit of the bargain damages

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

Holding that claims for breach of an express warranty of a medical device's safety would require a jury to determine that the device was unsafe

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

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

Stating that a malpractice claim "may not be brought or pursued in any court of [Maryland] except in accordance with this [Act]"