Bruesewitz v. Wyeth Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
561 F.3d 233 · 2009
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1334 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 301 (Animal Drug Amendments of 1968) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 42 U.S.C. § 300A · 49 U.S.C. § 20106
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Hines v. Davidowitz
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Express preemption requires that Congress’s intent to preempt be explicitly stated in the statute’s language or implicitly contained in its structure and purpose. Conflict preemption occurs when state law actually conflicts with federal law, such that it is impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal requirements, or where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Field preemption occurs when a field is reserved for federal regulation, leaving no room for state regulation, and congressional intent to supersede state laws is clear and manifest.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[l]aws, regulations, and orders related to railroad safety and laws, regulations, and orders related to railroad security shall be nationally uniform to the extent practicable. A State may adopt or continue in force a law, regulation, or order related to railroad safety or security un til the Secretary of Transportation (with respect to railroad safety matters), or the Secretary of Homeland Security (with respect to railroad security matters), prescribes a regulation or issues an order covering the subject matter of the State requirement. A State may adopt or continue in force an additional or more stringent law, regulation, or order related to railroad safety or security when the law, regulation, or order-(1) is necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local safety or security hazard; (2) is not incompatible with a law, regulation, or order of the United States Government; and (3) does not unreasonably burden interstate commerce.”
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.