Diet Drugs’s Empirical Analysis
282 F.3d 220 · 2002
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 7 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 127 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably In re Diet Drugs Products Liability Litigation (2005), De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (2003)
43 federal appellate · 7 district · 9 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 International Shoe Co. v. Washington · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor
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 127 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“entertaining complex litigation, especially when it involves a substantial class of persons from multiple states, or represents a consolidation of cases from multiple districts.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is in the nature of complex litigation that the parties often seek complicated, comprehensive settlements to resolve as many claims as possible in one proceeding. These cases are especially vulnerable to parallel state actions. . . .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sandpiper Village Condominium Association, Inc., a Florida Corporation and All Others Similarly Situated Craig Ostergren, Co-Conservator for Keith Ostergren, a Minor, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated Cheryl Ostergren, Co-Conservator for Keith Ostergren, a Minor, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated Keith Ostergren, a Minor Byron Alton Susan Alton Cpc Ltd., Washington Real Estate Developer v. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Lester Building Systems, a Division of Butler Manufacturing Company Lester's of Minnesota, Inc., State of Minnesota, Respondent-Amicus, and Harry A. Merlo, State of Minnesota, Insurance Company of North America Cigna Insurance Company of North America Northwestern Pacific Indemnity Company, Agricultural Insurance Company National Union Fire Insurance Company Lexington Insurance Company Granite State Insurance Company, Defendant-Intervenors v. James W. Gilles Dale J. Matherly Douglas Meckling Michael L. Watts, Plaintiff-Intervenors · 99 F. Supp. 3d 288 - Levin v. HSBC Bank, N.A.“[fjirst, we look to the nature of the federal action to determine what kinds of state court interference would sufficiently impair the federal proceeding. Second, we assess the state court’s actions, in order to determine whether they present a sufficient threat to the federal action. And finally, we consider principles of federalism and comity, for a primary aim of the Anti-Injunction Act is “to prevent needless friction between the state and federal courts.””
3 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.