Larkin v. Pfizer, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently August 2022
2 federal appellate · 7 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 42 U.S.C. § 300A
Relies on 117 Ill. 2d 507 - Kirk v. Michael Reese Hospital & Medical Center · 44 Cal. 3d 1049 - Brown v. Superior Court · Reyes v. Wyeth Laboratories · Seley v. G. D. Searle & Co. · Davis v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc.
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As a medical expert, the prescribing physician can take into account the propensities of the drug, as well as the susceptibilities of his patient. His is the task of weighing the benefits of any medication against its potential dangers. The choice he makes is an informed one, an individualized medical judgment bottomed on a knowledge of both patient and palliative.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A prescription drug or medical device is not reasonably safe due to inadequate instructions or warnings if reasonable instructions or warnings regarding foreseeable risks of harm are not provided to: (1) prescribing and other health-care providers who are in a position to reduce the risks of harm in accordance with the instructions or warnings; or (2) the patient when the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that health-care providers will not be in a position to reduce the risks of harm in accordance with the instructions or warnings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“An adequate warning has been defined as one sufficient to apprise the general practitioner as well as the unusually sophisticated medical man of the danger ous propensities of the drug. It is incumbent upon the manufacturer to bring the warning home to the doctor. Several cases have held that a package insert may be sufficient for the warning to be adequate as a matter of law. The warning may also be adequate if posted in the Physician’s Desk Reference.”
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.