McNeil v. Wyeth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions

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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although [the defendant drug manufac-tureras label mentions the conditions of which [the plaintiff] complains, [the plaintiff]’s claim ... is not that the warning is inadequate because her condition was not mentioned. Rather, her argument is that the label is misleading as to the risk level for developing the condition. We are aware of no Texas case allowing adequacy as a matter of law in such situations, and therefore we apply the default Texas rule that adequacy questions go to the jury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rimbert v. Eli Lilly and Co.

2. “[E]ven in the context of a learned intermediary, if the warning to the intermediary is inadequate or misleading, the manufacturer remains liable for injuries sustained by the ultimate user.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kubicki ex rel. Kubicki v. Medtronic, Inc.