Sam Feldt v. Mentor Corporation

Fifth Circuit

Sam Feldt v. Mentor Corporation

95 F.3d 4, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 22223, 1996 WL 485928

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 23, 1996

Docket94-20592

StatusPublished

This text of 95 F.3d 4 (Sam Feldt v. Mentor Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sam Feldt v. Mentor Corporation, 95 F.3d 4, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 22223, 1996 WL 485928 (5th Cir. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Before WISDOM, GARWOOD and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this products liability suit, plaintiff-appellant Sam Feldt (Feldt) appealed to this Court from the district court’s award of summary judgment, on the basis of preemption under 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a), part of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, for defendant-appellee Mentor Corporation (Mentor). We affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Feldt v. Mentor Corp., 61 F.3d 431 (5th Cir.1995). Thereafter, the United States Supreme Court granted applications for writ of certiorari filed by both Mentor and Feldt, vacated our prior judgment, and ordered the “case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 2240, 135 L.Ed.2d 700 (1996).” Mentor Corporation v. Feldt, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 2575, 135 L.Ed.2d 1091 (1996); Feldt v. Mentor Corporation, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 2575, 135 L.Ed.2d 1091 (1996). Under the Supreme Court’s order, our prior judgment is vacated and the case is again before us. Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s remand, we now vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the case to the district court for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr.

VACATED and REMANDED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Before WISDOM, GARWOOD and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this products liability suit, plaintiff-appellant Sam Feldt (Feldt) appealed to this Court from the district court’s award of summary judgment, on the basis of preemption under 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a), part of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, for defendant-appellee Mentor Corporation (Mentor). We affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Feldt v. Mentor Corp., 61 F.3d 431 (5th Cir.1995). Thereafter, the United States Supreme Court granted applications for writ of certiorari filed by both Mentor and Feldt, vacated our prior judgment, and ordered the “case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 2240, 135 L.Ed.2d 700 (1996).” Mentor Corporation v. Feldt, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 2575, 135 L.Ed.2d 1091 (1996); Feldt v. Mentor Corporation, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 2575, 135 L.Ed.2d 1091 (1996). Under the Supreme Court’s order, our prior judgment is vacated and the case is again before us. Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s remand, we now vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the case to the district court for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr.

VACATED and REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 F.3d 4, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 22223, 1996 WL 485928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sam-feldt-v-mentor-corporation-ca5-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack