1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. S.Ct.
  4. 131 S.Ct.
  5. 131 S.Ct. 2567 (2011)
 

PLIVA, INC. v. MENSING

Nos. 09-993, 09-1039, 09-1501.

131 S.Ct. 2567 (2011)

564 U.S. 604

180 L.Ed.2d 580

PLIVA, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. Gladys MENSING. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, Petitioner, v. Gladys Mensing. Actavis, Inc., Petitioner, v. Julie Demahy.

Supreme Court of United States.

Decided June 23, 2011.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Jay P. Lefkowitz , New York, NY, for Petitioners.

Louis M. Bograd , Washington, DC, for Respondents.

Edwin S. Kneedler , for United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the Respondents.

Alexandra W. Miller , Jane M. Ricci , Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Washington, DC, for Petitioner Actavis Inc.

Irene C. Keyse-Walker , Richard A. Dean , Tucker Ellis & West LLP, Cleveland, OH, for Petitioners Actavis Elizabeth LLC and Actavis Inc.

Joseph P. Thomas , Linda E. Maichl , Ulmer & Berne LLP, Cincinnati, OH, Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C., Michael D. Shumsky , Philippa Scarlett , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY, Richard A. Oetheimer , Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA, Jonathan I. Price , Goodwin Procter LLP, New York, NY, William F. Sheehan , Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington, DC, for Petitioners Pliva, Inc., Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., and UDL Labs, Inc.

Michael K. Johnson , Lucia J. W. McLaren , Goldenberg & Johnson, P.L.L.C., Minneapolis, MN, Daniel J. McGlynn , McGlynn, Glisson & Mouton, Baton Rouge, LA, Claire Prestel , Washington, DC, for Respondent Gladys Mensing.

Louis M. Bograd , Washington, DC, for Respondents Gladys Mensing & Julie Demahy.

Richard A. Tonry, II , Raymond Brinson , Brian L. Glorioso , Kristine K. Sims , Tonry, Brinson & Glorioso, L.L.C., Slidell, LA, for Respondent Julie Demahy.

Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part III-B-2.*

These consolidated lawsuits involve state tort-law claims based on certain drug manufacturers' alleged failure to provide adequate warning labels for generic metoclopramide. The question presented is whether federal drug regulations applicable to generic drug manufacturers directly conflict with, and thus pre-empt, these state-law claims. We hold that they do...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases