Maya v. Johnson & Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 state decisions

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Assuming that a plaintiff has established both duty and a failure to warn, a plaintiff must further -establish proximate causation by showing that had defendant issued a proper warning [], he would have altered his behavior and the injury would have been avoided. To create a jury question, the evidence introduced must be of sufficient weight to establish ... some reasonable likelihood that an adequate warning would have prevented the plaintiff from receiving the drug.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. William Bock v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp · 2015 Pa. Super. 175 - Czimmer v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

2. “The law presumes that the jury will follow the instructions of the court.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sensenich, S. v. Morcos, E. · Koziar, M. v. Rayner, N.

3. “it has remained a central premise of federal drug regulation that the manufacturer bears responsibility for the content of its label at all times. It is charged both with crafting an adequate label and with ensuring that its warnings remain adequate as long as the drug is on the market. See, e.g., 21 CFR § 201.80 (e) (requiring a manufacturer to revise its label “to include a warning as soon as there is reasonable evidence of an association of a serious hazard with a drug”); § 314.80(b) (placing responsibility for postmarketing surveillance on the manufacturer); 73 Fed. Reg. 49605 (“Manufacturers continue to have a responsibility under Federal law ... to maintain their labeling and update the labeling with new safety information”). Of course, the FDA retains authority to reject labeling changes made pursuant to the CBE regulation in its review of the manufacturer’s supplemental application, just as it retains such authority in reviewing all supplemental applications. But absent clear evidence that the FDA would not have approved a change to [a drug’s] label, we will not conclude that it was impossible for Wyeth to comply with both federal and state requirements. In short, Wyeth has not persuaded us that failure-to-warn claims ... obstruct the federal regulation of drug labeling.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2015 Pa. Super. 49 - Gurley, B. v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.