Warner-Lambert Co. v. Mills’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 321 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 332 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 355 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 379R (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
Relies on Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr · Maryland v. Louisiana · Retail Clerks International Ass'n, Local 1625 v. Schermerhorn · Fulton v. Finch · Pearson v. State
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The trial court’s certification order would permit lay and expert testimony, anecdotal evidence, and documentary evidence as proof that the products were or were not properly formulated as an effective treatment for head lice infestation ... [Plaintiffs] would attempt to prove that [Defendants’] products were chemically and scientifically ineffective for the cure of Texas head-lice infestations. It appears [Plaintiffs] would at tempt to prove the FDA regulation— which specifies the active ingredients that must be included if the product is to be considered effective — is simply incorrect, and that [Defendants’] products should not contain the active ingredients specified by the FDA if they are to be marketed in Texas as a treatment for head-lice infestation. In practical effect, the State lawsuit would make unlawful the sale of a product formulated to comply with a federal requirement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.