No. 23-919
Kristin DiCroce v. McNeil Nutritionals, LLC, et al.
Response Waived
Tags: buckman-ruling buckman-v-plaintiffs-legal-committee circuit-court-interpretation federal-food-drug-cosmetic-act federal-preemption implied-preemption medtronic-precedent medtronic-v-lohr state-law-causes-of-action state-law-claims statutory-interpretation
Latest Conference:
2024-04-12
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether the First, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits' holdings that state law claims based on violating the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act are impliedly preempted has misconstrued Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996), and Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341 (2001), and usurped the power of states to define the elements of their own state law causes of action.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether state law claims based on violating the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act are impliedly preempted
Docket Entries
2024-04-15
Petition DENIED. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2024-03-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/12/2024.
2024-03-13
Waiver of right of respondent McNeil Nutritionals, LLC, et al. to respond filed.
2024-02-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 27, 2024)
Attorneys
Kristin DiCroce
John P. Zavez — Adkins, Kelston & Zavez, PC, Petitioner
McNeil Nutritionals, LLC, et al.
Hannah Y. S. Chanoine — O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Respondent