No. 98-1884’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
11 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably 592 F. Supp. 2d 1147 - In Re Medtronic, Inc. Sprint Fidelis Leads Products Liability Litigation (2009), Rains v. Bend of the River (2003)
11 district · 8 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 Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr · Reyes v. Wyeth Laboratories · Locke v. Johns-Manville Corp. · Williamson v. the Old Brogue, Inc. · Abbot v. American Cyanamid 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n circumstances where (1) ethical drugs or medical devices that can be prescribed or installed only by a physician are involved and (2) a physician prescribes the drug or installs the medical device after having evaluated the patient, the manufacturer of the drug or device owes only the duty to warn the physician and to provide the physician with adequate product instructions.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]here a statutory provision does not define a standard of care but merely imposes an administrative requirement, such as the requirement to obtain a license or to file a report to support a regulatory scheme, violation of such requirement will not support a negligence per se claim.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Breach of the requirement not to mis-brand a surgical nail is similar to a breach of a speed limit; each violates a specific and substantive standard of care that is intended to protect others. The holding in Eutsler, however, does not establish the principle that the simple failure to obtain approval of advice from the FDA, standing alone, can support a negligence per se claim. The administrative requirement that a given device be approved by the FDA before being marketed — as opposed to a specific substantive requirement that a device be safe and effective — is only a tool to facilitate administration of the underlying regulatory scheme. Because it lacks any independent substantive content, it does not impose a standard of care, the breach of which could form the basis of a negligence per se claim. Its breach is analogous to the failure to have a driver[’]s license.”
2 later decisions 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.