Schrock v. Wyeth, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
727 F.3d 1273 · 2013
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 301 (Animal Drug Amendments of 1968) · 21 U.S.C. § 352 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 355 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · English v. General Electric Co. · Wyeth v. Levine · Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. · Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[c]ourts that have concluded brand-name manufacturers are not liable to consumers of generic drugs relied on three principal rationales. First, they based their view on traditional common law tort principles under which a manufacturer is liable for injuries caused by its own product. Second, they reason that brand-name manufacturers' warnings and representations do not create a basis for liability to consumers of competitors' products because brand-name manufacturers only intend to communicate with their customers, not the customers of competitors. Finally, they conclude that public policy considerations weigh against holding name-brand competitors liable for injuries caused by their generic competitor's drug.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rigler v. Lampert“[The parties] urge us to follow an approach taken by other circuits and look beyond the text of the district court’s order to determine whether it can be said to have made the requisite determinations.”). Yet, even if the Third Circuit’s approach could be deemed congruent with our precedent — an issue upon which we explicitly decline to opine — it would not avail Mr. Waltman. The only statements in the district court’s certification order that even conceivably could be deemed to speak to the express-determination requirement are the following: (1)”
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.