171 F. Supp. 2d 1 - Webster v. Pacesetter, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
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. § 360C (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 360E (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 360J (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 360K (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
Relies on Hines v. Davidowitz · Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. · Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. · Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr · Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.
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.
“[t]he 510(k) notification process is by no means comparable to the PMA process”); see Webster v. Pacesetter Inc., 171 F.Supp.2d 1, 11 (D.D.C.2001) (stating that”
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.