PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 13 district · 22 state decisions

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 169 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “question for 'impossibility' is whether the private party could independently do under federal law what state law requires of it.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Dolin v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC · Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp.

2. “applicable to Wyeth allowed the company, of its own volition, to strengthen its label in compliance with its state tort duty.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp. · Painters & Allied Trades Dist. Council 82 Health Care Fund v. Forest Pharm., Inc. (In re Celexa & Lexapro Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig.)

3. “First, the proposed generic drug must be chemically equivalent to the approved brand-name drug: It must have the same "active ingredient" or "active ingredients," "route of administration," "dosage form," and "strength" as its brand-name counterpart. 21 U.S.C. §§ 355 (j)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii). Second, a proposed generic must be "bioequivalent" to an approved brand-name drug. § 355(j)(2)(A)(iv). That is, it must have the same "rate and extent of absorption" as the brand-name drug. § 355(j)(8)(B). Third, the generic drug manufacturer must show that "the labeling proposed for the new drug is the same as the labeling approved for the [approved brand-name] drug." § 355(j)(2)(A)(v).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dolin v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC