Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 262 Ind. 75 - State v. Doane

State v. Doane’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
December 2007
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 2007

10 state decisions

701974198019902000decided

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

Applies 21 U.S.C. § 321 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 352 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 353 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)

Relies on State ex rel. Board of Commissioners v. Board of Commissioners · Mogilner v. METROPOLITAN PLAN COMM., ETC. · KEENER, ETC. v. City of Kendallville

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

  1. ““There is nothing inherently unconstitutional with the Indiana Legislature adopting Federal statutory schemes by incorporating them in sections of State statutes. A state is constitutionally capable of scrutinizing and approving Federal legislation providing that the reference to the provisions being incorporated meets certain standards of clarity. The standard for incorporation by reference in Indiana therefore requires that a statute may adopt a part or all of another statute only by a specific reference to that section sought to be incorporated. Keener v. City of Kendallville (1963), 244 Ind. 87 , 191 N.E. 2d 6 . [Subsection (1)] does not attempt to indicate in any specific manner what sections of Federal law are sought to be incorporated. There are no references to any sections of the United States Code or to any act of Congress or even to which title of the Code might contain the warning requirements. Anyone seeking to find which drugs might require such a warning is left with no path to follow to the applicable section sought to be incorporated. It • is apparent that the attempted incorporation by the State statute of certain sections of Federal law by the language in subsection (1) must fail since it does not meet the requisite standard of specificity as to which sections are sought to be incorporated.” (emphasis supplied) 311 N.E.2d at 805-807 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.