Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 164 F.3d 650 - Pearson v. Shalala

Pearson v. Shalala’s Empirical Analysis

164 F.3d 650 · 1999

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
August 2021
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 14 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2021 · most notably Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki (2008), Sierra Club v. Environmental Protection Agency (2002)

13 federal appellate · 14 district ·

2201999200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Central Hudson Gas Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York · Bates v. State Bar of Arizona · Jacobellis v. Ohio · Board of Trustees of State Univ. of NY v. Fox

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

  1. “The FDA’s concern regarding the fourth claim — “0.8 of folic acid in a dietary supplement is more effective in reducing the risk of neural tube defects than a lower amount in foods in common form” — is different from its reservations regarding the first three claims; the agency simply concluded that “the scientific evidence does not support the superiority of any one source [of folic acid] over others.” 61 Fed.Reg. at 8760. But it appears that credible evidence did support this claim [citation omitted], and we suspect that a clarifying disclaimer could be added to the effect that “the evidence in support of this claim is inconclusive.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “showing that such solicitation posed dangers of fraud, overreaching, or compromised independence). 9 37 We do not presume to draft precise disclaimers for each of appellants' four claims; we leave that task to the agency in the first instance. Nor do we rule out the possibility that where evidence in support of a claim is outweighed by evidence against the claim, the FDA could deem it incurable by a disclaimer and ban it outright. 10 For example, if the weight of the evidence were against the hypothetical claim that”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[I]t appears that credible evidence did support [the folic acid claim], and we suspect that a clarifying disclaimer could be added to the effect that 'The evidence in support of this claim is inconclusive.' ” (citation omitted)). 8 . The current FDA guidance regarding evaluation of health claims, issued in 2009, is entitled”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.