Thomas v. Inc’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 5 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Little v. Liquid Air Corp. (1994), Mark Eck Sandra Keck Travis Eck Megan Eck v. Parke Davis & Company Warner-Lambert Company the Rugby Group Inc and Rugby Laboratories Inc (2001)
6 federal appellate · 5 district · 14 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.
Relationships
Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman · Monsanto Company v. Spray-Rite Service Corporation · Phelps Dodge Corp. v. AFL-CIO Joint Negotiating Committee · Wrenn v. Board of Directors
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] plaintiff may introduce either objective evidence of how a reasonable physician would have responded to an adequate warning, or subjective evidence of how the treating physician would have responded. But, to create a jury question, the evidence introduced must be of sufficient weight to establish, by the preponderance-of .the evidence, at least some reasonable likelihood that an adequate warning would have prevented the plaintiff from receiving the drug.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“and requiring proof that the risk was sufficiently high that it would have changed the treating physician's decision to prescribe the drug had he been adequately warned). We think Comment j provides ample support for application of the rebuttable”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Furthermore, in attempting to predict the likely course that Mississippi law will take, we recognize that there are two very different types of warnings that might be associated with a particular product: (1) an unavoidable risk warning; and (2) a preventable risk warning. . . . The second type of warning is customarily associated with mechanical products, and details risks that can be avoided by using the product in a certain manner. . . . Because the precautions [in the second type of warnings] are typically minimal . . . we have little trouble with a rebuttable presumption that a reasonable product user will choose to use the product safely.”
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.