Harvey v. Johanns’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 348 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 7 U.S.C. § 6501 (Organic Foods Production Act of 1990) · 7 U.S.C. § 6502 · 7 U.S.C. § 6504 · 7 U.S.C. § 6510 · 7 U.S.C. § 6517
Relies on The State of Pennsylvania v. The Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company et al. · Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse · Usi Properties Corp v. Md Construction Co Compania De Desarrollo Cooperativo · Fafel v. DiPaola · Harvey v. Veneman
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 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The National List may provide for the use of substances in an organic farming or handling operation that are otherwise prohibited under this title....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harvey v. Johanns
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.