Eric Wright v. Abbott Laboratories Inc -’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
202 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 219 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably State v. Ward (2010), Rose v. via Christi Health System, Inc. (2003)
202 district · 3 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 Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · Osgood v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance · Phelps v. Hamilton · Wooderson v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. · Deters v. Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc.
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 219 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“essential to the proper disposition of the claim.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The learned intermediary doctrine states that once a manufacturer warns a doctor about a drug’s inherent dangers, it has fulfilled its legal duty to provide a warning. See Hall v. Merck, Sharp & Dohme, 774 F.Supp. 604, 605-06 (D.Kan. 1991) (granting summary judgment to a drug manufacturer because it discharged its legal duty to plaintiff by warning prescribing physician of drug’s inherent risks); Phelps v. Sherwood Med. Indus., 836 F.2d 296, 301-03 (7th Cir.1987). Under Kansas law, a plaintiff cannot prevail against a prescription drug manufacturer in a failure to warn case where the manufacturer warned the learned intermediary of the drug’s inherent risks.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a trial court’s decision will not be disturbed unless the appellate court has a definite and firm conviction that the lower court made a clear error of judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances. That is to say, we will not alter a trial court’s decision unless it can be shown that the court’s decision was an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable judgment.”
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.