Wolicki-Gables v. Arrow International, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that the district court did not err in concluding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a presumption that the device was defectively manufactured
• affirming the dismissal of a complaint where plaintiff failed to identify a parallel federal duty
• “The Court recognizes that the FDCA and its regulations prohibit off-label promotion by manufacturers, but, even if such a claim were present in this case, there is no private right of action for violations of the FDCA”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).