Christopher v. Cutter Laboratories’s Empirical Analysis
53 F.3d 1184 · 1995
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably United States v. Frazier (2004), Mark Eck Sandra Keck Travis Eck Megan Eck v. Parke Davis & Company Warner-Lambert Company the Rugby Group Inc and Rugby Laboratories Inc (2001)
39 federal appellate · 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 262 (Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009)
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Bonner v. City of Prichard · The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman · California v. Texas · Elrod v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he physician acts as a “learned intermediary” between the manufacturer and the patient and any warning given to the physician is deemed a warning to the patient. The learned intermediary doctrine provides that the failure of a drug manufacturer to provide the physician with an adequate warning of the risks associated with a prescription product is “not the proximate cause of a patient’s injury if the prescribing physician had independent knowledge of the risk that the adequate warnings should have communicated.” Thus, the causal link between a patient’s injury and the alleged failure to warn is broken when the prescribing physician had substantially the same knowledge as an adequate warning from the manufacturer that should have been communicated to him.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This Court examines jury instructions as a whole to determine whether they fairly and adequately addressed the issue and correctly stated the law.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If [the defendant] believed the medical testimony was statistically invalid, it should have objected to that testimony, giving [the witness] the chance to explain his answers. Objecting would also have provided the district court with the opportunity not only to make a ruling on the accuracy and admissibility of the challenged testimony, but also to clarify that testimony.”
3 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.