Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 881 FSUPP2D 650 - Wolfe v. McNeil-PPC, Inc.

Wolfe v. McNeil-PPC, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

2012

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
April 2016
most recently cited

1 district ·

Relationships

Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al. · Brown v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority · United States v. Downing · Paoli Railroad Yard Pcb Litigation Brown v. Monsanto Company

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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The Court rules that expert testimony regarding the state of mind of defendants and the FDA, and expert testimony that constitutes a legal opinion, is inadmissible.”); Heineman v. American Home Products Corp., No. 13-cv-02070-MSK-CBS, 2015 WL 1186777 , at (D.Colo. Mar. 12, 2015)(excluding opinions about defendants' state of mind)(”
    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.