Allen v. G.D. Searle & Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “k. Unavoidably unsafe products. There are some products which, in the present state of human knowledge, are quite incapable of being made safe for their intended and ordinary use. ... Such a product, properly prepared, and accompanied by proper directions and warning, is not defective, nor is it unreasonably dangerous. ... The seller of such products, again with the qualification that they are properly prepared and marketed, and proper warning is given, where the situation calls for it, is not to be held to strict liability for unfortunate consequences attending their use, merely because he has undertaken to supply the public with an apparently useful and desirable product, attended with a known but apparently reasonable risk. " (Emphasis added.) [2] Section 402A, RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS, states in pertinent part: "(1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property... .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tansy v. Dacomed Corp.

2. “The court has not located any Oregon decision holding that notice is no longer required in a warranty action for personal injuries resulting from the purchase of a consumer product. On the contrary, in Redfield [v. Mead, Johnson & Co.,] supra [ 266 Or. 273 , 512 P.2d 776 (1973) ], an action against a contraceptive drug manufacturer, the Oregon Supreme Court stated that O.R.S. 72.6070 “indicates that notice is an essential element of plaintiffs case” for breach of warranty. 266 Or. at 284 , 512 P.2d 776 . In the absence of any authority for abolishing the notice requirement, and in the absence of any evidence that Allen gave notice of her express or implied warranty claims, this court must rule that Allen has not established an essential element of her warranty claims.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 5 F. Supp. 3d 1265 - Parkinson v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

3. “No doubt there is tension between the conclusion that safety regulation is the exclusive concern of the federal law and the conclusion that a State may nevertheless award damages based on its own law of liability.... Congress intended to stand by both concepts and to tolerate whatever tension there was between them. We can do no less. It may be that the award of damages based on the state law of negligence or strict liability is regulatory in the sense that a nuclear plant will be threatened with damages liability if it does not conform to state standards, but that regulatory consequence was something that Congress was quite willing to accept.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Oxendine