White v. Stryker Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 301 (Animal Drug Amendments of 1968) · 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. § 360K (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr · Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. · Bausch v. Stryker Corp.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Amended Complaint neither cites any particular federal standard or procedure, nor does it generally state how the alleged defect deviated from a federal standard or procedure. ... [I]t contains only the most general allegations of product liability [and] negligence .... It does not identify any particular design flaw, manufacturing impropriety or product defect. It does not assert either a PMA-specific standard or a GMP regulation, the violation of which might form the basis for a state law action. Rather, in a general manner it purports to limit otherwise broad state law claims only to those circumstances involving noncompliance with an FDA standard. In the face of the narrow pleading window required to avoid preemption, Plaintiff has done virtually nothing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the context of MDA preemption, Twombly and Iqbal make a plaintiffs job more difficult than it would be in a typical product liability case. When facing MDA preemption, a plausible cause of action requires, among other things, a showing that the alleged violation of state law parallels a violation of federal law This additional step requires some greater specificity in the pleadings. However, our appellate courts have been unable to agree upon the precise level of that specificity. Nonetheless, ... a plaintiff must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.””
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.