§Why CasetextPricing

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

MEMORANDUM. Signed

19 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 252,377 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

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 266,313 times   365 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' "

  3. Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.

    552 U.S. 312 (2008)   Cited 1,031 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a State’s “‘requirements’” “includ[e] [the state’s] common-law duties”

  4. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro

    178 F.3d 231 (4th Cir. 1999)   Cited 6,549 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

  5. Presley v. City of Charlottesvile

    464 F.3d 480 (4th Cir. 2006)   Cited 1,979 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

  6. 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

  7. Bausch v. Stryker Corp.

    630 F.3d 546 (7th Cir. 2010)   Cited 631 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that tort law claims based on manufacturing defects were not impliedly preempted

  8. Lloyd v. General Motors Corp.

    397 Md. 108 (Md. 2007)   Cited 490 times
    Holding that to succeed on a private claim under the MCPA, the plaintiff must have suffered injury "as a result of" the plaintiff's "reliance on" the defendant's misrepresentation

  9. 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”

  10. 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

  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 345,529 times   922 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 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

  13. 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]"