Smith v. Wyeth, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a] threshold requirement of any products-liability claim is that the plaintiff assert that the defendant's product caused the plaintiff's injury. The plaintiffs in this case concede that they had consumed only generic versions of metoclopramide and not Reglan. As the district court observed, adopting their theory of liability would require the court to attribute any deficiency in a name-brand manufacturer's labeling and marketing of its products to products manufactured by its generic competitors. Such a theory, however, fails to satisfy the threshold requirement of a products-liability action-that the defendant's product have injured the plaintiff. As the district court stated, "Just because a company is in the same business as a tortfeasor, the company is not automatically liable for the harm caused by the tortfeasor's product." The plaintiff's argument-that the name-brand defendants' liability stems from the fact that the regulatory structure governing the name-brand and generic drugs makes it foreseeable that patients and their physicians will rely upon the name-brand labels to use and prescribe generic drugs-has been rejected by all but one of the courts that have considered it.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McNair v. Johnson & Johnson · Strayhorn v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

2. “[A]s in the present case, the plaintiffs in Mensing alleged that their long-term use of generic metoclopramide caused tardive dyskinesia, and they predicated the manufacturers’ liability under state law on the failure to provide adequate warnings on the product’s label. The Supreme Court held unequivocally, however, that federal law preempts state laws that impose on generic-drug manufacturers the duty to change a drug’s label, thus barring the plaintiffs state-law tort claims. The plain language of the PLIVA decision compels the same result here.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Phelps v. Wyeth, Inc. · 887 F. Supp. 2d 799 - Strayhorn v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

3. “[a]s have the majority of courts to address this question, we reject the argument that a name-brand drug manufacturer owes a duty of care to individuals who have never taken the drug actually manufactured by that company”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McNair v. Johnson & Johnson · 877 F. Supp. 2d 466 - Lashley v. Pfizer, Inc.