Pink Sheet is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

High Court’s Wyeth v. Levine Ruling Returns Pre-Emption Status Quo

This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet

Executive Summary

The Supreme Court's ruling in Wyeth v. Levine dashes pharmaceutical industry hopes for broad protection from state product liability lawsuits, but is not expected to trigger a sea-change in current industry operations

You may also be interested in...



FDA Preemption Comment Could Sway California Against Prop 65 Warnings For Acetaminophen

 Food and drug attorneys suggest it is unlikely California will require Prop 65 warnings on OTC acetaminophen products after FDA tells the state that warnings would violate federal regulations. FDA also says sciences doesn't support a conclusion acetaminophen can cause cancer and that the warnings would confuse consumers.

Children's Motrin Label Ruling Shows 'Genuine Confusion' On Pre-emption – J&J

J&J's attorneys argue that a state court ruling of inadequate warnings on Children's Motrin labels conflicts with a federal appellate court's ruling about the product that also swung on whether a manufacturer can be held liable for failing to include a label warning without “clear evidence” FDA would have approved the label.

Children's Motrin Label Ruling Shows 'Genuine Confusion' On Pre-emption – J&J

J&J's attorneys argue that a state court ruling of inadequate warnings on Children's Motrin labels conflicts with a federal appellate court's ruling about the product that also swung on whether a manufacturer can be held liable for failing to include a label warning without “clear evidence” FDA would have approved the label.

Related Content

Topics

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

PS102681

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel