Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 861 FSUPP2D 802 - Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Conway

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Conway’s Empirical Analysis

2012

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
June 2016
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Burford v. Sun Oil 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The OAG retains the right at all times to direct the litigation in all respects, including but not limited to, whether and when to initiate litigation, against whom actions will be taken, the claims to be made in said litigation, approval and/or rejection of settlements and the amount and type of damages to be requested.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “raise concerns analogous to those in the public nuisance or eminent domain contexts”
    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.