Gelber v. Stryker Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 301 (Animal Drug Amendments of 1968) · 21 U.S.C. § 337 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 351 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 360 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 360C (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 360E (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 360F (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 360H (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Conley v. Gibson · Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. · Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Each manufacturer shall establish and maintain procedures to ensure that the design requirements relating to a device are appropriate and address the intended use of the device, including the needs of the user and patient. The procedures shall include a mechanism for addressing incomplete; ambiguous, or conflicting requirements. The design input requirements shall be documented and shall be reviewed and approved by a designated individual(s). The approval, including the date and signature qf the individual(s) approving the requirements, shall be documented.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section no State or political subdivision of a State may establish or continue in effect with respect to a device intended for human use any requirement - (1) which is different from, or in addition to, any requirement applicable under this chapter to the device, and (2) which relates to the safety or effectiveness of the device or to any other matter included in a requirement applicable to the device under this chapter.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Plaintiffs' implied warranty claims are not preempted to the extent they allege a defective manufacturing claim.”
1 later decision 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.