Gilbert v. Eli Lilly & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 11 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Talbot v. Robert Matthews Distributing Co. (1992), Emmons v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1983)
2 federal appellate · 11 district · 3 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
Relies on McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · Harrison v. Perea · Karen Renee Augustus, a Minor, by Charles A. Augustus, Her Father, and Next Friend v. The Board of Public Instruction of Escambia County, Florida · Netzer v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. · 180 F. Supp. 717 - Fleischer v. A.A.P., Inc.
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... the court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““This Court is also of the opinion that codefendant Eli Lilly & Co., Inc.’s affirmative defense number 9, whereby the damages claimed by the plaintiff are, as an affirmative defense, said to be exaggerated and speculative, is not an affirmative defense but a negative defense, encompassed under the general denial made by this codefendant of plaintiff’s assertion related to the damages he has suffered and, as such, must be stricken. Likewise, this is not to say that at trial, this codefendant cannot present evidence to prove that the damages suffered by the plaintiff are not as high as he alleges they are.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“nothing more than a negative defense, ... one which tends to disprove one or all of the elements of a complaint. An affirmative defense is properly concerned with the pleading of a matter not within the plaintiff's prima facie case, that is, pleading matter to avoid plaintiff's cause of action. [Citations omitted.] While the affirmative defenses are governed by Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Title 28, United States Code, the negative defenses are governed by Rule 8(b) of the same federal rules. [Footnotes omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.