Talbott v. C.R. Bard, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
63 F.3d 25 · 1995
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 15 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably 592 F. Supp. 2d 1147 - In Re Medtronic, Inc. Sprint Fidelis Leads Products Liability Litigation (2009), 447 Pa. Super. 403 - Rosci v. AcroMed, Inc. (1995)
10 federal appellate · 15 district · 5 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 18 U.S.C. § 3663 · 21 U.S.C. § 360E (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 360K (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
Relies on Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. · Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. · National Union Fire Insurance v. Helfand · New Jersey v. New York · Golden Pacific Bancorp v. United States
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[N]o State or political subdivision may establish or continue in effect with respect to a device intended for human use any requirement— (1) which is different from, or in addition to, any requirement applicable under [the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act] to the device, and (2) which relates to the safety or effectiveness of the device or to any other matter included in a requirement applicable to the device under [the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“This is a particularly poignant case in which the heirs of a woman who died during angioplasty are being found not to have the right to seek compensation for the damages they have undoubtedly suffered. The government has vigorously enforced the applicable criminal and civil laws. Nevertheless this decision may cause some, including those who enacted the law, to question whether complete preemption of private rights of action is the most fair and effective means of balancing the legitimate, competing interests of promoting innovation and reasonably assuring the safety of complex medical devices. It is axiomatic, however, that the courts must faithfully give effect to the intentions of Congress when they are clearly expressed by Congress, as they have been in this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“To avoid the possibility of disuniform treatment, Congress placed enforcement authority in the FDA---- Centrally situated and with the requisite expertise, the FDA is in the best position to determine whether the provisions of the MDA have in fact been violated and to ensure that the law is applied in a uniform manner, (citation omitted). Given the FDA’s central enforcement role, the preemptive scope of § 360k(a) becomes clear ... the express preemption provided by [that section] manifests a decision by Congress to replace completely the private rights of action usually available under state law with civil and criminal enforcement of the federal government when thoroughly regulated devices ... are at issue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.