Follow POL on Twitter Yes, preemption is alive and well in many vital areas where state courts might otherwise be called on to second-guess the FDA. And that's a good thing [Beck & Herrmann]
"As a policy matter we think that defibrillators are a product as to which preemption is peculiarly appropriate"
Related Entries:
- Update on California foreign policy efforts
- Greg Conko: Can brand makers be sued for generic drug injuries?
- Romney and self-deporting
- Another lawless jackpot award over propofol in Nevada
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California
- Rehearing sought in Mensing
- Around the web, June 5
- Somin on federalism and tort reform
- Martin Act abuses
- "Abnormal Use" interview
- Lasker on preemption
- Around the web, March 28
- Teva and Baxter appeal $505 million Nevada propofol verdict
- Breaking: unanimous vote against preemption in Williamson v. Mazda
- Tort reform and federalism
 |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
 |
| Laura Eyi Press Officer, Manhattan Institute leyi@manhattan-institute.org |
