Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson — BrandWiki

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson

litigants	Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson
arguedate	April 28
argueyear	1986
decidedate	July 7
decideyear	1986
fullname	Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, et al., as next friends and guardians of Thompson, et al.
usvol	478
uspage	804
parallelcitations	106 S. Ct. 3229; 92 L. Ed. 2d 650; 1986 U.S. LEXIS 143; 54 U.S.L.W. 5088
prior	Thompson v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 766 F.2d 1005 (6th Cir. 1985); cert. granted,.
holding	A violation of a federal statute, as part of a claim, is not sufficient for the federal courts to claim original jurisdiction if the statute does not create a private remedy for violations of the statute.
majority	Stevens
joinmajority	Burger, Powell, Rehnquist, O'Connor
dissent	Brennan
joindissent	White, Marshall, Blackmun

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court decision[1] involving the original jurisdiction of the federal district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction).[2]

Background

The Thompsons, residents of Canada, and the MacTavishes, residents of Scotland, filed virtually identical complaints against Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals in the Court of Common Pleas in Hamilton County, Ohio, claiming negligence, fraud, breach of warranty, and misbranding in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The mother in each family had taken the drug Bendectin during pregnancy which they claimed caused harm to their children including birth defects.

Procedural history

The case was filed in state court and then removed to federal district court where it was found that Count IV (the misbranding count) of the complaint alleged a cause of action arising under federal law and the motion to remand was denied.

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson

Background

Procedural history

Issue

Majority opinion

Dissent

Aftermath

See also

External links

References