McDowell v. Eli Lilly & Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 1 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A warning is adequate as a matter of law 'if it provides specific detailed information on the risks of the drug.' " McDowell v. Eli Lilly & Co. , 58 F.Supp.3d 391 , 403 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Martin , 607 N.Y.S.2d at 602 , 628 N.E.2d 1308 ). "In making this determination, the [c]ourt should consider factors including 'whether the warning is accurate, clear, consistent on its face, and whether it portrays with sufficient intensity the risk involved in taking the drug.' " Id. at 403 (citation omitted). "A warning is accurate if it is 'correct, fully descriptive and complete, and ... convey[s] updated information as to all of the drug's known side effects.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Trisvan v. Heyman · Chandler v. Janssen Pharm., Inc.

2. “A warning is clear if it employs language that is 'direct, unequivocal and sufficiently forceful to convey the risk.' " Id. "The warning should also be evaluated as a whole and not through the nitpicking prism of an interested legal advocate after the fact.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Trisvan v. Heyman

3. “A prescriber's independent knowledge of the risks of a drug or medical device breaks the chain of proximate causation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Oden v. Bos. Scientific Corp.