Murthy v. Abbott Laboratories’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bank Bribery Amendments) · 21 U.S.C. § 301 (Animal Drug Amendments of 1968) · 42 U.S.C. § 262 (Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Yohey v. Collins · Baskett v. United States
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the defendant, before or after premarket approval or licensing of the product, withheld from or misrepresented to the United States Food and Drug Administration required information that was material and relevant to the performance of the product and was causally related to the claimant’s injury ...;”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“will likely agree with the Court of Appeals’ reasoning in Centocor, Inc.”
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.