Lashley v. Pfizer, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
750 F.3d 470 · 2014
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 355 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 46
Relies on Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr · Wyeth v. Levine · PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing · PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Mensing forecloses such claims because failure to “communicate” extends beyond just a label change. To avoid liability, the manufacturer must take affirmative steps to alert consumers, doctors, or pharmacists of changes in the drug label. Because the duty of sameness prohibits the generic manufacturers from taking such action unilaterally, they are dependent on brand-names taking the lead. Under federal law, the inquiry is whether the brand-name manufacturers sent out a warning, not whether the proposed warning to be disseminated contains substantially similar information as the label. Because no brand-name manufacturer sent a warning based on the 2004 label change, the generic manufacturers were not at liberty to do so. As Mensing concluded, preemption is thus triggered since it would be impossible for [the generic manufacturer] to comply with both the state law duty to warn and the federal law duty of sameness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[rjegardless of the specific form in which the argument is styled (negligence, fraud, deceptive trade practices), each charge is, at base, a failure-to-wam claim.” Lashley, 750 F.3d at 474 n.7. Moreover, in an alternate analysis the court stated,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“because Appellants did not ingest the brand manufacturer's products, these [brand] defendants have no common-law duty to them”
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.