Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2004 Pa. Super. 40 - Cheskiewicz v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc.

2004 Pa. Super. 40 - Cheskiewicz v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
3
states following
September 2021
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 2021

5 state decisions

30200420102020decided

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 United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill · Garcia v. United States · Mansell v. Mansell · Johnson v. COM., PA. BD. OF PROB. & PAR.

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “This streamlined program establishes standards of proof under which injured claimants benefit from a presumption that a vaccine listed in the Act’s Vaccine Injury Table, see U.S.C. § S00aar-lk, caused their injuries. The Act requires that a person with a vaccine , related injury file a petition in Vaccine Court, which is a special tribunal of the Federal Court of Claims, before proceeding in either state or federal court. If a premature action has been filed in a state or federal court, that court shall “dismiss the action.” A Vaccine Act claim must first be filed within thirty-six months “after the date of the occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of the significant aggravation of such vaccine related injury.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “We have already determined that Parents do not have a right to bring an action in state court until they have exhausted their administrative remedies. Therefore, it would be judicially imprudent at this juncture to discuss the constitutionality of the Vaccine Act.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “means any corporation, organization, or institution, whether public or private ... which manufactures, imports, processes, or distributes any vaccine set forth in the Vaccine Injury table, including any component or ingredient of any such vaccine .... The term”
    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.