Walus v. Pfizer, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
4 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 2013
4 district · 4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Bates v. State Bar · County of Los Angeles v. Chavez-Salido · Goodman v. Mead Johnson & Co.
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“New Jersey treats all product liability actions the same, regardless of the theory asserted. Plaintiffs cannot ... recast [ ] their product liability claims as fraud claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“cannot avoid the physical harm requirement by recasting their product liability claims as fraud claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“heart valve has not failed to function properly,”
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.