Changes

In ''Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr'', 518 U.S. 470 (1996), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held, in a products liability case, that [[federal]] law does not preempt [[common law]] causes of action for recovery of damages.  "At this early stage in the litigation, there was no reason for the Court of Appeals to preclude altogether the Lohrs' manufacturing and labeling claims to the extent that they rest on claims that Medtronic negligently failed to comply with duties 'equal to, or substantially identical to, requirements imposed' under federal law."  ''Id.'' at 496-97.

In '''''Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr''''', 518 U.S. 470 (1996), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held, in a products liability case, that [[federal]] law does not preempt [[common law]] causes of action for recovery of damages.  "At this early stage in the litigation, there was no reason for the Court of Appeals to preclude altogether the Lohrs' manufacturing and labeling claims to the extent that they rest on claims that Medtronic negligently failed to comply with duties 'equal to, or substantially identical to, requirements imposed' under federal law."  ''Id.'' at 496-97.

The Court, in a splintered decision written by Justice [[John Paul Stevens]], emphasized that:

The Court, in a splintered decision written by Justice [[John Paul Stevens]], emphasized that: