Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2150309
 


 



PLIVA v. Mensing and Its Implications


Brian Wolfman


Stanford University Law School

Dena Feldman


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

Abstract:     
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


Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: September 22, 2012  

Suggested Citation

Wolfman, Brian and Feldman, Dena, PLIVA v. Mensing and Its Implications (September 5, 2011). Product Safety & Liability Report (BNA), Vol. 39, pp. 972-982, September 5, 2011; Georgetown Public Law Research Paper No. 12-137. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2150309

Contact Information

Brian Wolfman (Contact Author)
Stanford University Law School ( email )
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305
United States
Dena Feldman
Covington & Burling ( email )
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-2401
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 420
Downloads: 52
Download Rank: 256,149

© 2015 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.297 seconds