Motus v. Pfizer Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
358 F.3d 659 · 2004
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably 168 Cal. App. 4th 89 - Conte v. Wyeth, Inc. (2008), Colacicco v. Apotex Inc. (2008)
4 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 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 Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Salve Regina College v. Russell · 13 Cal. 4th 1104 - Carlin v. Superior Court · 6 Cal. 4th 539 - Ramirez v. Plough, Inc. · prod.liab.rep.(cch)p 11,422 Harry Plummer, Cross-Appellant v. Lederle Laboratories, Division of American Cyanamid Company, Cross-Appellee
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] product defect claim based on insufficient warnings cannot survive summary judgment if stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct of the prescribing physician.”) (alteration in original) (quoting Motus v. Pfizer Inc., 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir.2004) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“doctor testified that he did not read the warning label”
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.