Multiple Choice
The PLIVA,Inc.v.Mensing case involved the issue of whether the federal law requirement that generic drugs must bear the same FDA-approved labels as their brand-name counterparts preempts state law claims for failure to warn.What was the holding by the U.S.Supreme Court?
A) Federal law did not preempt state law claims for failure to warn.
B) Federal law preempted state law claims for failure to warn.
C) Federal law preempted state law claims for failure to warn based on strict liability but that failure to warn claims based on negligence could proceed.
D) Federal law preempted state law claims for failure to warn based on negligence but that failure to warn claims based on strict liability could proceed.
Correct Answer:

Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q29: The European Union applies strict liability to
Q30: A seller should enter into a contract
Q31: In regard to successor liability,courts applying the
Q32: A court might consider a product to
Q33: Which of the following allows the filing
Q35: To recover for a defective product,an injured
Q36: A _ defect occurs when,even though the
Q37: The main holding in CASE 10.1,MacPherson v.Buick
Q38: A person voluntarily and unreasonably assumes the
Q39: If the societal value of an inherently