FEDERAL · 21 U.S.C. · Chapter 9
State and local requirements respecting devices
Current through Pub. L. 119-102
(a)General rule
Except as provided in subsection (b), no State or political subdivision of a State may establish or continue in effect with respect to a device intended for human use any requirement—
(1)which is different from, or in addition to, any requirement applicable under this chapter to the device, and
(2)which relates to the safety or effectiveness of the device or to any other matter included in a requirement applicable to the device under this chapter.
(b)Exempt requirements
Upon application of a State or a political subdivision thereof, the Secretary may, by regulation promulgated after notice and opportunity for an oral hearing, exempt from subsection (a), under such conditions as may be prescribed in such regulation, a requirement of such State or political subdivision ap
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
21 U.S.C. § 360k (State and local requirements respecting devices) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
People v. Applied Card Systems, Inc.
894 N.E.2d 1 (New York Court of Appeals, 2008)
Gomez v. St. Jude Medical Daig Division Inc.
442 F.3d 919 (Fifth Circuit, 2006)
Barbara E. Horn, of the Estate of Daniel Ray Horn, Deceased v. Thoratec Corporation
376 F.3d 163 (Third Circuit, 2004)
Oja v. Howmedica, Inc.
111 F.3d 782 (Tenth Circuit, 1997)
Simon v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
990 F. Supp. 2d 395 (S.D. New York, 2013)
Dillon v. Medtronic, Inc.
992 F. Supp. 2d 751 (E.D. Kentucky, 2014)
Lewis v. Johnson & Johnson
991 F. Supp. 2d 748 (S.D. West Virginia, 2014)
Brazil v. Dole Food Co.
935 F. Supp. 2d 947 (N.D. California, 2013)
This That and the Other Gift and Tobacco, Inc. v. Cobb County, Georgia
285 F.3d 1319 (Eleventh Circuit, 2002)
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Food & Drug Administration
153 F.3d 155 (Fourth Circuit, 1998)
Erickson v. Boston Scientific Corp.
846 F. Supp. 2d 1085 (C.D. California, 2011)
Anguiano v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.
44 F.3d 806 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)
Scovil v. Medtronic, Inc.
995 F. Supp. 2d 1082 (D. Arizona, 2014)
Jenkins v. Medtronic, Inc.
984 F. Supp. 2d 873 (W.D. Tennessee, 2013)
Kealoha v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
82 F.3d 894 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)
Barone v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.
372 F. Supp. 3d 141 (W.D. New York, 2019)
Lewis v. Intermedics Intraocular, Inc.
56 F.3d 703 (Fifth Circuit, 1995)
Committee of Dental Amalgam Manufacturers & Distributors v. Stratton
92 F.3d 807 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)
Leipart v. Guardian Industries, Inc.
234 F.3d 1063 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
Source Credit
History
(June 25, 1938, ch. 675, §521, as added Pub. L. 94–295, §2, May 28, 1976, 90 Stat. 574.)