Gourdine v. Crews’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 24 district · 66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably Newell v. Runnels (2009), Blondell v. Littlepage (2010)
4 federal appellate · 24 district · 66 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. § 321 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 331 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 352 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
Relies on 117 Ill. 2d 507 - Kirk v. Michael Reese Hospital & Medical Center · United States v. Article of Drug . . . Bacto-Unidisk · Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia · 9 Cal. 3d 51 - Stevens v. Parke, Davis & Co. · Jacques v. First National Bank
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In considering a trial court’s grant of a motion for summary judgment, this Court reviews the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Council of Unit Owners of Gables on Tuckerman Condominium, 404 Md. 560, 570-71 , 948 A.2d 11, 18 (2008); Rodriguez v. Clarke, 400 Md. 39 , 926 A.2d 736 (2007); Rhoads v. Sommer, 401 Md. 131, 148 , 931 A.2d 508, 518 (2007) (“We review the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and construe any reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts against the moving party.”); Harford County v. Saks, 399 Md. 73, 82 , 923 A.2d 1, 6 (2007) (In reviewing a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary judgment, “we seek to determine whether any material facts are in dispute and, if they are, we resolve them in favor of the non-moving party.”); Lovelace v. Anderson, 366 Md. 690, 695 , 785 A.2d 726, 728 (2001) (In reviewing a grant of the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, “we must review the facts, and all inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.”). If no material facts are in dispute, this Court must determine whether the Circuit Court correctly entered summary judgment as a matter of law. Anderson, 404 Md. at 571 , 948 A.2d at 18 ; Rodriguez, 400 Md. at 70 , 926 A.2d at 754 ; Saks, 399 Md. at 82 , 923 A.2d at 6 ; Property and Casualty Ins. Guaranty Corp. v. Yanni, 397 Md. 474, 480-81 , 919 A.2d 1, 5 (2007); Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Berrett, 395 Md. 439, 451 , 9”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“there was no direct connection between Lilly's warnings, or the alleged lack thereof, and [ ] Gourdine's injury[,]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) that the defendant made a false representation to the plaintiff, (2) that its falsity was either known to the defendant or that the representation was made with reckless indifference as to its truth, (3) that the misrepresentation was made for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff, (4) that the plaintiff relied on the misrepresentation and had the right to rely on it, and (5) that the plaintiff suffered compensable injury resulting from the misrepresentation.”
3 later decisions 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.