Reeves v. Acromed Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
103 F.3d 442 · 1997
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently November 2021
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 301 (Animal Drug Amendments of 1968) · 21 U.S.C. § 360 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 360E (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 360K (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
Relies on Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. · Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. · Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr · The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman · Love v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[b]efore making any change affecting the safety or effectiveness of the device, [the manufacturer shall] submit a PMA Supplement for review and approval by FDA;”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.