Desiano v. Warner-Lambert & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
467 F.3d 85 · 2006
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 10 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably Roe v. City of Waterbury (2008), New York State Restaurant Ass'n v. New York City Board of Health (2009)
14 federal appellate · 10 district · 6 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. § 301 (Animal Drug Amendments of 1968) · 21 U.S.C. § 360E (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. · Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Massachusetts · Alexander v. Sandoval
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]ere we to conclude that Appellants' claims were preempted, we would be holding that Congress, without any explicit expression of intent, should nonetheless be taken to have modified (and, in effect, gutted) traditional state law duties between pharmaceutical companies and their consumers. We see no reason, nor can we identify any precedent, to justify such a result.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he Michigan legislature's desire to rein in state-based tort liability falls squarely within its prerogative to regulate matters of health and safety, which is a sphere in which the presumption against preemption applies, indeed, stands at its strongest.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[¡Intentionally withholds or misrepresents to the United States food and drug administration information concerning the drug that is required to be submitted under the federal food, drug and cosmetic act and the drug would not have been approved, or the United States food and drug administration would have withdrawn approval for the drug if the information were accurately submitted.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.