SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Doe’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 4 district · 83 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 115 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Bradford v. Vento (2001), Torrington Co. v. Stutzman (2001)
9 federal appellate · 4 district · 83 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin))
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 2001 (Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988)
Relies on Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co. · Dennis v. Dennis · Gibbs v. General Motors Corporation · Montgomery v. Kennedy · Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania v. Ben Cooper, Inc.
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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There are many instances in which it may be said, as a matter of law, that there is a duty to do something, and in others it may be said, as a matter of law, that there is no such duty. Using familiar illustrations, it may be said generally, on the one hand, that if a party negligently creates a dangerous situation it then becomes his duty to do something about it to prevent injury to others if it reasonably appears or should appear to him that others in the exercise of their lawful rights may be injured thereby. On the other hand, it may be said generally, as a matter of law, that a mere bystander who did not create the dangerous situation is not required to become the good Samaritan and prevent injury to others.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although it may be true, as plaintiff asserts, that the increasing use of drug testing for employment purposes raises serious questions concerning the duties owed by entities seeking and using the tests to current or prospective employees subjected thereto, the fact that there are reasons to be concerned about the uses, potential misuses or abuses of drug test results does not justify imposing additional and unprecedented duties upon a laboratory with the sole function of analyzing a sample and returning a report, particularly when such report is factually accurate.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“inform each test subject not only of the possible effect of poppy seeds but of all possible causes of positive results other than using drugs.”
2 later decisions 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.