Cornett v. Johnson & Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
7 district · 17 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 332 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 333 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 334 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 337 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 360A (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. § 360I (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
Relies on Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr · Buckman Company V.' Legal Committee · Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. · Retail Clerks International Ass'n, Local 1625 v. Schermerhorn · Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Electronics Corp.
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“recognized the preeminent role of federal regulation of drugs and medical devices.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In any product liability action the manufacturer or seller shall not be liable for harm caused by a failure to warn if the product contains an adequate warning or instruction or, in the case of dangers a manufacturer or seller discovers or reasonably should discover after the product leaves its control, if the manufacturer or seller provides an adequate warning or instruction. An adequate product warning or instruction is one that a reasonably prudent person in the same or similar circumstances would have provided with respect to the danger and that communicates adequate information on the dangers and safe use of the product, taking into account the characteristics of, and the ordinary knowledge common to, the persons by whom the product is intended to be used, or in the case of prescription drugs, taking into account the characteristics of, and the ordinary knowledge common to, the prescribing physician. If the warning or instruction given in connection with a drug or device or food or food additive has been approved or prescribed by the federal Food and Drug Administration under the "Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act," 52 Stat. 1040 , 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. or the "Public Health Service Act," 58 Stat. 682 , 42 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., a rebuttable presumption shall arise that the warning or instruction is adequate. For purposes of this section, the terms "drug", "device", "food", and "food additive" have the meanings defined in the "Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Cornett v. Johnson & Johnson, 211 N.J. 362 , 370 n. 3, 48 A.3d 1041 (2012) (citing In re Mercedes-Benz Tele Aid Contract Litig., 257 F.R.D. 46, 56 (D.N.J.2009)).”
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.