Niehoff v. Surgidev Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently March 2017
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 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
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 360 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 360C (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 360J (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 360K (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
Relies on Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. · Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. · M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr · CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, no State or political subdivision of a State may establish or continue in effect with respect to a device intended for human use any requirement— (1) which is different from, or in addition to, any requirement applicable under this chapter to the device, and (2) which relates to the safety or effectiveness of the device or to any other matter included in a requirement applicable to the device under this chapter.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.