Cisson v. C.R. Bard, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
810 F.3d 913 · 2016
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 360C (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2111
Relies on BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore · Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr · State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Campbell · McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood · Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams
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.
“[T]he court stated that bringing in such evidence would result in a "mini-trial" about (1) the strengths and weaknesses of the process and (2) whether [the defendant] had in fact made all of the disclosures it should have made during the process. [The defendant's] evidence would have initiated a battle of experts: [the defendant] was prepared to characterize the review process as "thorough" and "robust" and the FDA's clearance of the Avaulta Plus as "an affirmative safety ... decision" based on "specific safety and efficacy findings." [The plaintiff] was prepared to argue, as she has done before this Court, that these characterizations wildly inflate the significance of the process, and that in any event [the defendant] failed to make necessary disclosures to the FDA. All of this, the district court reasoned, presented "the very substantial dangers of misleading the jury and confusing the issues." The court expressed concern that subjecting the jury to many hours, and possibly days, of complex testimony about regulatory compliance could lead jurors to erroneously conclude that regulatory compliance proved product safety. In other words, having a "mini-trial" could easily inflate the perceived importance of compliance and distract the jury from the central question before it-whether [the defendant's] design was unreasonable based on any dangers it posed versus the costs required to avoid them. While 510(k) clearance might, at least tangentially, say something about the safety ”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“about (1) the strengths and weaknesses of the process and (2) whether [the defendant] had in fact made all of the disclosures it should have made during the process. [The defendant's] evidence would have initiated a battle of experts: [the defendant] was prepared to characterize the review process as”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The plaintiff] was prepared to argue, as she has done before this Court, that these characterizations wildly inflate the significance of the process, and that in any event [the defendant] failed to make necessary disclosures to the FDA. All of this, the district court reasoned, presented”
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.