Do No Harm v. Pfizer’s Empirical Analysis
2024
Citation profile
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from New York Southern District Court)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866)
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Warth v. Seldin · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission
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.
“the separate document rule is deemed to have been waived and the assumption of appellate jurisdiction is proper”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the appellee[] do[es] not object to the taking of an appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“an order appealed from clearly represents a final decision,”
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.