PLIVA v. Mensing and Its Implications
Stanford University Law School
Covington & Burling
September 5, 2011
Product Safety & Liability Report (BNA), Vol. 39, pp. 972-982, September 5, 2011
Georgetown Public Law Research Paper No. 12-137
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in PLIVA Inc. v. Mensing will immunize generic drug manufacturers facing failure-to-warn claims from state-law liability, and may also have implications for preemption jurisprudence more generally, says attorney Brian Wolfman and co-author Dena Feldman in this BNA Insight. The authors analyze the ruling, and offer their views on the questions that PLIVA raises about the ongoing vitality of the presumption against preemption, the standard for determining ‘‘impossibility’’ preemption, and the propriety of deference to an agency’s views on preemption.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 13
Keywords: Supreme Court, PLIVA, FDA regulations, generic drugs, preemption jurisprudence, failure-to-warn claims
JEL Classification: K00, K30, K39
Date posted: September 22, 2012
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.204 seconds