Soufflas v. Zimmer, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 360C (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 360E (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · General Electric Co. v. Joiner · Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“are inapplicable to prescription medical devices in Pennsylvania.” Soufflas, 474 F.Supp.2d at 752 ; see Mahripodis v. Merrell-Dow Pharm., Inc., 361 Pa.Super. 589 , 523 A.2d 374, 377 (1987) (”
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.