Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co.’s Empirical Analysis
678 F.3d 30 · 2012
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 6 district ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 301 (Animal Drug Amendments of 1968) · 21 U.S.C. § 355 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Wyeth v. Levine · State Oil Co. v. Khan · Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. · 131 S. Ct. 1762 - Bobby v. Mitts
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Mutual cannot legally make sulindac in another composition.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“admi[ssion] that he had not read the box label or insert.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f Mutual wanted a further caution in the instructions”
2 later decisions 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.