642 F. Supp. 2d 677 - Morris v. Wyeth, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 355 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
Relies on English v. General Electric Co. · Geier v. American Honda Motor Co. · Heintz v. Jenkins · California v. Arc America Corp. · United States v. Locke
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“two possible interpretations of § 314.97. Either the Demahy court is correct that § 314.97 requires ANDA holders to utilize § 314.70, in which case whether or not an ANDA holder can unilaterally change its label is an issue currently pending before the Supreme Court, or the Demahy court is incorrect and § 314.97 merely states that when a brand manufacturer utilizes § 314.70, then so too must the generic manufacturer make that same change to its corresponding drug’s label.”
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.