Carmine v. Poffenbarger’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 337 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 360C (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 360K (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian · Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp. · Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson Ex Rel. Thompson
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“other courts have found it 'telling' that Congress chose to neither permit federal jurisdiction, nor completely preclude state jurisdiction, over claims alleging violations of the MDA.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(quotation omitted) ); Anders , 2014 WL 1652352 , at (same); Goade , 2013 WL 6237853 , at (same). In fact, because”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“argument that only a 'small percentage' of a 'tiny [fraction]' of medical devices is as heavily regulated as”
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.