Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
559 federal appellate · 139 district · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,273 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2023 · most notably United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd. (1988), Ricci v. DeStefano (2009)
559 federal appellate · 139 district · 52 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedHynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc. v. Richardson (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 301 (Animal Drug Amendments of 1968) · 21 U.S.C. § 321 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 355 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 371 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 554 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 556 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 701 · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Fuentes v. Shevin · Permian Basin Area Rate Cases
Cited together with Weinberger v. Bentex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Ciba Corp. v. Weinberger · Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
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 1,273 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(w) The term “new animal drug” means any drug intended for use for animals other than man, including any drug intended for use in animal feed but not including such animal feed,— (1) The composition of which is such that such drug is not generally recognized, among experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of animal drugs, as safe and effective for use under the conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling thereof; except that such a drug not so recognized shall not be deemed to be a “new animal drug” if at any time prior to June 25, 1938, it was subject to the Food and Drug Act of June 30, 1906, as amended, and if at such time its labeling contained the same representations concerning the conditions of its use; or * *”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“adequate and well-controlled investigations, including clinical investigations, by experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the effectiveness of the drug involved”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“drug manufacturers . . . full and precise notice of the evidence they must present to sustain their NDA's . . . .”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.