Mills v. Warner-Lambert Co.’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1334 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 301 (Animal Drug Amendments of 1968) · 21 U.S.C. § 321 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 331 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 352 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 355 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 360 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 360E (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. · Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. · M'Culloch v. State of Maryland
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any action against a manufacturer or seller for recovery of damages arising out of personal injury, death, or property damage allegedly caused by a defective product whether the action is based in strict tort liability, strict products liability, negligence, misrepresentation, breach of express or implied warranty, or any other theory or combination of theories.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Lopez v. Huron“claims under the UCC and the DTPA for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability [were] not products liability actions under Texas law”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.