Richards v. Upjohn Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 4 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably DeTevis v. Aragon (1986), Martin v. Unit Rig & Equipment Co. (1983)
4 federal appellate · 4 district · 31 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 9 Cal. 3d 51 - Stevens v. Parke, Davis & Co. · Goodman v. Brock Ex Rel. Estate of Brock · Pharmaseal Laboratories, Inc. v. Goffe · McEwen v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation · 226 Cal. App. 2d 378 - Love v. Wolf
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We reiterate our position in Cordova v. City of Albuquerque, 86 N.M. 697 , 526 P.2d 1290 (Ct.App.1974) that the courts do have discretion to allow the filing of late affidavits under N.M.R.Civ.P. 6(d), N.M.S.A. 1978. This is particularly true in summary judgment proceedings, since it is important for the court to consider as much information as possible before concluding that there are no material facts in dispute. * * * Consequently, an affidavit submitted the day of the summary judgment hearing should be allowed, unless the other party needs time to rebut the information contained in the affidavit, and there is some reason that the hearing cannot be postponed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hunick v. Orona““1. the warning must adequately indicate the scope of the danger; 2. the warning must reasonably communicate the extent or seriousness of the harm that could result from misuse of the drug; 3. the physical aspects of the warning must be adequate to alert a reasonably prudent person to the danger; 4. a simple directive warning may be inadequate when it fails to indicate the consequences that might result from failure to follow it and ... 5. the means to convey the warning must be adequate. In other words, the drug manufacturer must bring the warning home to the doctor.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ross v. Jacobs
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.