What is LawBrain?
It's a living legal community making laws accessible and interactive. Click Here to get Started »

Supreme Court cases (2000-2009) - Product Liability law

From lawbrain.com

Revision as of 01:19, 29 December 2009 by FindLaw VM (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


Travelers Indemn. Co. v. Bailey (2009)

In objections to a settlement of tort claims against the insurer of an asbestos manufacturer, the Court of Appeals' order sustaining the objections is reversed where the terms of a prior injunction issued in bankruptcy proceedings regarding the manufacturer barred direct actions against Defendant, and the finality of the Bankruptcy Court's orders generally stood in the way of challenging their enforceability.

Wyeth v. Levine (2009)

In a tort action based on an injury due to the medical use of Wyeth's drug Phenergan, judgment for respondent Levine is affirmed where Federal law does not preempt Levine's claim that the drug's label did not contain an adequate warning about the IV-push method of administration.

Warner-Lambert Co. v. Kent (2008)

In a case involving Michigan legislation which immunized drugmakers from products liability claims so long as the FDA approved the pharmaceutical product at issue, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court decision that a fraud exception to the immunity legislation was not prohibited through federal preemption.

Riegel v. Medtronic (2008)

The pre-emption clause enacted in the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA) bars common-law claims challenging the safety or effectiveness of a medical device given premarket approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Philip Morris USA v. Williams (2007)

A punitive damages award, based in part on a jury's desire to punish a defendant for harming nonparties, amounts to a taking of property from the defendant without due process. A judgment rejecting a tobacco company's challenges to a punitive damages award against it in a negligence and deceit case is vacated where the Oregon Supreme Court applied the wrong constitutional standard when considering the tobacco company's appeal.

  • This LawBrain entry is a stub. Please help us expand it! Click the 'Edit' tab above to add to this page.


FindLaw VM