4 Cal. App. 4th 8 - Hufft v. Horowitz’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably 35 Cal. App. 4th 733 - Villa v. McFerren (1995), Hopkins v. Dow Corning Corp. (1994)
7 federal appellate · 28 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
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 360C (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
Relies on 20 Cal. 3d 413 - Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. · Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. · 44 Cal. 3d 1049 - Brown v. Superior Court · 53 Cal. 3d 987 - Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. · 251 Cal. App. 2d 689 - Toole v. Richardson-Merrell 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“draw[ing] a bright line within which the comment k test is applied to all implanted medical devices.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“k . Unavoidably unsafe products. There are some products which, in the present state of human knowledge, are quite incapable of being made safe for their intended and ordinary use. These are especially common in the field of drugs. An outstanding example is the vaccine for the Pasteur treatment of rabies, which not uncommonly leads to very serious and damaging consequences when it is injected.... Such a product, properly prepared, and accompanied by proper directions and warning, is not defective, nor is it unreasonably dangerous. The same is true of many other drugs, vaccines, and the like....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Strict liability might prove to be a dis-incentive to manufacturers to develop and market beneficial drugs because of `fear of large adverse monetary judgments' and the expense of strict liability insurance, costs that could `place the cost of medication beyond the reach of those who need it most.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.