Ucc v. P Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 6 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently September 2019 · most notably Kemp v. Medtronic, Inc. (2000), 99 Cal. App. 4th 780 - Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co. (2002)
1 federal appellate · 6 district · 13 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
Relies on Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. · Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr · Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris · Voinovich v. Quilter · Laws v. United Missouri Bank
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“During the PMA process, the federal government, it can truly be said, has “ “weighed the competing interests relevant to the particular requirement in question, reached an unambiguous conclusion about how those competing considerations should be resolved in a particular case or set of cases, and implemented that conclusion via a specific mandate on manufacturers or producers.’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““Approval by the FDA constitutes approval of the product’s design, testing, intended use, manufacturing methods, performance standards and labeling. The FDA’s determination is specific to the product. A state court judgment premised on a contrary determination, as a finding of liability based on the Mitchells’ strict liability claim necessarily would be, would constitute *** a requirement ‘different from, or in addition to,’ the standard required by federal authority.” Mitchell, 126 F.3d at 913 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““In the case of a product that has gone through the PMA process, these criteria are set by the FDA. A state judgment for breach of implied warranty that rested on allegations about standards other than those permitted by the FDA would necessarily interfere with the PMA process and, indeed, supplant it.” Mitchell, 126 F.3d at 915 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.