Simon v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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.

1. “[E]ven if the Amended Complaint were fairly read to assert a claim of design defect based solely on the'optional metal liner, any such claim would be preempted. That is because the optional metal liner received supplemental [premarket] approval in conjunction with the BHR System. As noted, design defect claims regarding a [premarket]-approved device are squarely preempted by the [Medical Device Amendments to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act]. Such preemption extends to a component of a [premarket]-approved device.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 30 F. Supp. 3d 554 - Edwards v. Ethicon, Inc. · 29 F. Supp. 3d 736 - Huskey v. Ethicon, Inc.

2. “an allegation that [defendant] could have manufactured a different product altogether, or that others have done so, does not itself make out a plausible claim of design defect”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Oden v. Bos. Scientific Corp. · Lara v. Delta International Machinery Corp.

3. “To plead and prove a manufacturing flaw under either negligence or strict liability, the plaintiff must show that a specific product unit was defective as a result of 'some mishap in the manufacturing process itself, improper workmanship, or because defective materials were used in construction,' and that the defect was the cause of plaintiff's injury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Oden v. Bos. Scientific Corp.