Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee
2001 United States Supreme Court case
Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned whether the FDCA (Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act), a federal statute, pre-empted a state-law fraud-on-the-FDA claim. Although finding it on different grounds, the Court decided to reject the lawsuit attempt.
Background
The Plaintiffs' Legal Committee represented plaintiffs who claimed injuries resulting from the use of bone screws on their spines. They sued Buckman Company, alleging they made fraudulent representations to the FDA. They further argued that "but for" the false representations, the injuries would not have occurred.
The District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania heard these claims and decided to dismiss the "fraud-on-the-FDA" sections of the complaint on the ground that it was pre-empted by federal law. A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed, arguing that there was no express pre-emption.
Buckman Company appealed to the Supreme Court which heard the case in December 2000.
The public source identifies “Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee” as 2001 United States Supreme Court case. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Buckman, Plaintiffs' and Legal.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee”, the useful work is to connect “2001 United States Supreme Court case” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q4983401. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2001 and 2000.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee primary sources, Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee archive and Buckman research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.