Case Citator › In re Abbott Laboratories

In re Abbott Laboratories

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Declined by some courts
Court
Fifth Circuit
Citation
51 F.3d 524
Decided
Confirmed treatments
9
Flagged citations read
52 of 52
Citing cases (total)
52
Treatment dates
1996–2001
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. In re Abbott Laboratories was declined by courts outside the Fifth Circuit during a dispute over class-action jurisdiction; the 9 confirmed treatments are listed below. All 52 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

Eight citing opinions rejected its view that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 displaced Zahn v. International Paper Co., and the First Circuit separately questioned its Louisiana attorney-fee analysis. The Supreme Court later held in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. that § 1367 did displace Zahn, resolving that earlier disagreement in Abbott's favor. The Fifth Circuit continued to apply Abbott in 2009.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

52 later cases cite In re Abbott Laboratories; 52 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on In re Abbott Laboratories?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Declined to follow

  • The Southern District of New York rejected Abbott's reading of § 1367 and refused supplemental jurisdiction over class members whose claims did not meet the required amount.

    McGowan v. Cadbury Schweppes, PLC · S.D.N.Y. · filed

    In support of this argument, defendants rely primarily on Free v. Abbott Lab. (In re Abbott Lab.) ... Unlike the Fifth Circuit, the Second Circuit has not embraced the idea that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 overrules Zahn. ... Accordingly, even if successful on the first prong of this argument, defendants’ argument would fail on the second prong as the Court would not be able to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining plaintiffs’ claims.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Southern District of New York rejected Abbott's supplemental-jurisdiction rule and required class members to meet the amount-in-controversy threshold.

    Bernard v. Gerber Food Products Co. · S.D.N.Y. · filed

    In support of this argument, Gerber relies primarily on Free v. Abbott Lab. (In re Abbott Lab.) ... This is the minority view and has not been followed in this Circuit. ... Unlike the Fifth Circuit, the Second Circuit has not embraced the idea that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 overrules Zahn.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Southern District of New York rejected the § 1367 position defendants drew from Abbott and held that Zahn's amount requirement still applied to class members.

    Colon v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. · S.D.N.Y. · filed

    Specifically, we find that, contrary to Rent-A-Center’s assertion, the passage of 28 U.S.C. § 1367 did not overrule, .impliedly or otherwise, the core holding of Zahn. ... The Defendants place heavy emphasis on In re Abbott Labs., 51 F.3d 524 (5th Cir.1995) ... The Defendants’ position, however, is “the minority view and has not been followed in this Circuit.”
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Southern District of California rejected Abbott's interpretation of § 1367 and held that Zahn survived the statute.

    Daniels v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. · S.D. Cal. · filed

    The principal criticism directed at the Abbott decision is that the Fifth Circuit made an erroneous determination that (a) the statute was clear and unambiguous on its face and (b) it was therefore unnecessary to refer to the legislative history. ... Although the Fifth and Seventh Circuits have determined that § 1367 effectively overrules Zahn, this Court is not so persuaded.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Eastern District of Michigan rejected Abbott's jurisdictional result and held that Zahn still required class members to meet the amount threshold.

    Casteel ex rel. Casteel v. Sara Lee Corp. · E.D. Mich. · filed

    See In re Abbott Laboratories, 51 F.3d 524 (5th Cir.1995); ... this Court holds that Zahn has not been overruled. Accordingly, defendants’ request that this Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction will be denied.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Western District of Michigan rejected Abbott's view that § 1367 displaced Zahn and required class members to meet the jurisdictional amount.

    Krieger v. Gast · W.D. Mich. · filed

    Krieger’s position is supported by decisions from two circuit courts, the Fifth Circuit in Free v. Abbott Laboratories (In re Abbott Laboratories), 51 F.3d 524 (5th Cir.1995) ... Having reviewed a significant number of decisions reaching opposite conclusions, the Court finds itself in agreement with those courts which have concluded that Zahn survived the passage of § 1367.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Western District of New York chose the contrary Zahn rule after considering Abbott and remanded the class actions.

    Freeman v. Great Lakes Energy Partners, L.L.C. · W.D.N.Y. · filed

    The court in Abbott Labs based its conclusion on the fact that section 1367 does not exempt Rule 23’s class actions from its reach ... This court agrees with the district courts of this circuit, and with the Third Circuit ... In light of this court’s finding that Zahn survives section 1367’s enactment, the court grants the Freemans and Ms. Kershaw’s motion to remand
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Third Circuit reaffirmed its rejection of Abbott's § 1367 ruling and required each class member to meet the amount threshold.

    In re LifeUSA Holding, Inc. · Third Circuit · filed

    In so holding, we explicitly rejected the decisions r elied upon here by plaintiffs: In re Abbott Labs., 51 F.3d 524 ... Therefore, Meritcare remains the law of this Circuit: each member of a class action must independently meet the jurisdictional amount r equirement
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Questioned

  • The First Circuit expressed reservations about Abbott's attorney-fee analysis while deciding a case under a different state statute.

    Spielman v. Genzyme Corp. · First Circuit · filed

    We have reservations about the correctness of Abbott Labs. Even if that were not the case, however, we would decline to adopt the parallel reading that Spielman advocates.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads In re Abbott Laboratories and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace