Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories’s Empirical Analysis
283 F.3d 315 · 2002
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 17 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 127 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably O'Sullivan v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2003), Texas v. United States (2007)
34 federal appellate · 17 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 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor · Flast v. Cohen · Sierra Club v. Morton
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.
“Rivera paid for an effective pain killer, and she received just thatthe benefit of her bargain.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements. First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact” — an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized ... and (b) actual or imminent not conjectural'or hypothetical ... Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of ... Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Notably, the wrongs Rivera and the class allege are those suffered by other, non-class member patients. The plaintiffs claim that Wyeth violated the implied warranty of merchantability by selling a defective drug, but then aver that the drug was not defective as to them. Similarly, the plaintiffs claim Wyeth violated the DTPA by failing to issue warnings sufficient to advise injured users, but then concede they were not among the injured. Such wrongs cannot constitute an injury in fact.”
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.