Colacicco v. Apotex Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
521 F.3d 253 · 2008
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 9 district · 7 state decisions
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. § 355 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 360 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 360K (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 393 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · United States v. Mead Corp. · Hines v. Davidowitz · Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) “express” preemption, applicable when Congress expressly states its intent to preempt state law; (2) “field” preemption, applicable when “Congress’ intent to pre-empt all state law in a particular area may be inferred [because] the scheme of federal regulation is sufficiently comprehensive” or “the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject;” and (3) “conflict” preemption, applicable when “state law is nullified to the extent that it actually conflicts with federal law,” even though Congress has not displaced all state law in a given area.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[A] summary of the most clinically significant information ... critical to safe use of the drug,” including, inter alia, potential safety hazards associated with use of the drug. 21 C.F.R. § 201 .57a(10), (c)(6)(i). Applicants must also include a “summary of the benefits and risks of the drug, including a discussion of why the benefits exceed the risks under the conditions stated in the labeling.” Id., § 314.50(d)(5)(viii).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“there is ‘reasonable evidence of an association of a serious hazard with a drug,’ ” and stating”
2 later decisions 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.