Mutual Pharmaceutical Co, generic pharmaceutical manufacturers.#Generic #pharmaceutical #manufacturers

Posted On May 16 2018 by

Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett

Holding: State-law design-defect claims that turn on the adequacy of a drug’s warnings are pre-empted by federal law under PLIVA v. Mensing.

Judgment: Reversed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 24, 2013. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Kagan joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Ginsburg joined.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

  • Opinion analysis: Court reaffirms tort protections for generic pharmaceutical manufacturers (Ronald Mann)
  • The “view” from the Court: June 24, 2013 (Mark Walsh)
  • Details: Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett (Tejinder Singh)
  • Argument recap: Court troubled by tort protections for generic pharmaceutical manufacturers (Ronald Mann)
  • Argument preview: Court to write yet another chapter on tort protections for generic pharmaceutical manufacturers (Ronald Mann)
  • SCOTUS for law students (sponsored by Bloomberg Law): Preemption again (Stephen Wermiel)
  • Petition of the day (Ben Cheng)

Featured Posts

Argument preview: The justices return to cellphones and the Fourth Amendment Amy Howe

Argument preview: Plain talk about Dodd-Frank whistleblowing Theresa Gabaldon

Argument preview: Justices to consider limits on securities class actions in state courts Ronald Mann

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

This Week at the Court

Major Cases

Whether a United States provider of email services must comply with a probable-cause-based warrant issued under 18 U.S.C. § 2703 by making disclosure in the United States of electronic communications within that provider’s control, even if the provider has decided to store that material abroad.

  • Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31

    Whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment.

  • Gill v. Whitford

    (1) Whether the district court violated Vieth v. Jubelirer when it held that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin’s redistricting plan, instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis; (2) whether the district court violated Vieth when it held that Wisconsin’s redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles; (3) whether the district court violated Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan-gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in Davis v. Bandemer; (4) whether the defendants are entitled, at a minimum, to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court’s test, which the court announced only after the record had closed; and (5) whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable.

  • National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra

    Whether the disclosures required by the California Reproductive FACT Act violate the protections set forth in the free speech clause of the First Amendment,

  • Carpenter v. United States

    Whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cellphone records revealing the location and movements of a cellphone user over the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment.

  • Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

    Whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

  • see all this term’s cases »

    Last Updated on: May 16th, 2018 at 4:32 pm, by

    Written by admin

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *