Andrews v. Eli Lilly & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 360F (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 706 · 7 U.S.C. § 136D
Relies on Branzburg v. Hayes · Keyishian v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of NY · Regents of the University of California v. Bakke · United States v. Morton Salt Co. · Sweezy v. State of New Hampshire C Wyman
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[T]he lower federal courts have nearly universally concluded that where access is sought to a journalist's confidential sources, the first amendment will not countenance a breach of confidentiality unless the need for the disclosure is carefully weighed against the injury to the free flow of information that would result from the disclosure."”
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.