Pearson v. Shalala’s Empirical Analysis
172 F.3d 72 · 1999
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
April 1999
most recently cited
Relationships
Relies on 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island · Pearson v. Shalala · Keating v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission · Adams v. Hinchman · Benavides v. Drug Enforcement Administration
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“to the drug approval process, raises a First Amendment concern. From this premise, the government now reasons that the FDA's present approach of exempting from drug status only those health-claim bearing dietary supplements whose claims attain”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Pearson, Durk v. FDA“thereby triggering the rigorous drug approval process. The government asserts that neither employing a health claim as a trigger to the drug approval process (which was never tested in litigation), nor subjecting”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Pearson, Durk v. FDA“concluding that it was arbitrary under the APA for FDA not to specify in advance precisely what evidence will establish 'significant scientific agreement.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Pearson, Durk v. FDA
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.