Patteson v. Astrazeneca, LP’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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. “'[w]hat constitutes the accrual of a cause of action is a question of law ... [,] when accrual actually occurred in a particular case is a question of fact' to be resolved by the fact-finder. 'In all cases to which the discovery rule applies, the inquiry is highly fact-bound and requires an evaluation of all of the plaintiff's circumstances.' Otherwise put, '[u]nless the evidence regarding the commencement of the running of the statute of limitations is so clear that the court can rule on the issue as a matter of law, the jury should decide the issue on appropriate instructions.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Duke v. Cmty. Health Connections, Inc.

2. “holds that, because prescription [devices] are available to the public only through a physician and are to be administered only under a physician's supervision, the [device] manufacturer's duty is to adequately inform the physician, who is expected to function as a 'learned intermediary' between the company and the patient in protecting the patient and providing direct information about the [device] to the patient.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kubicki ex rel. Kubicki v. Medtronic, Inc.

3. “As long as the [prescription] manufacturer properly warns a prescribing physician of the dangerous propensities of its product, the manufacturer is excused from warning each patient who receives the [product].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kubicki ex rel. Kubicki v. Medtronic, Inc.