Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 714 FAPPX 4 - Andrews v. Target Pharmacy

Andrews v. Target Pharmacy’s Empirical Analysis

2017

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
September 2018
most recently cited

2 district ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)

Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Borges v. Serrano-Isern · Faigin v. Kelly · Thibeault v. Square D Co. · Canavan's Case

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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “plaintiffs did not offer a scintilla of expert testimony to prove causation”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.