Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht’s Empirical Analysis
587 U.S. 299 · 2019
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 107 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2024 · most notably House v. Hatch (2008), 68 So. 3d 435 - State v. Sparks (2011)
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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
Applies 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. § 352 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 355 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Bennett v. Spear · MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. · Miller v. Fenton · United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc. · Wyeth v. Levine
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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“requires that pre-emptive effect be given only to those federal standards and policies that are set forth in, or necessarily follow from, the statutory text that was produced through the constitutionally required bicameral and presentment procedures.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[F]ederal law pre-empts state law only if the two are in logical contradiction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[w]here state and federal law 'directly conflict,' state law must give way.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.