Israel v. Baxter Laboratories, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
466 F.2d 272 · 1972
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently July 2012 · most notably Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau (1982), Potters Medical Center v. City Hospital Ass'n (1986)
28 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 state decisions
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. § 355 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 294 · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. · California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited · United States v. Western Pacific Railroad · United Mine Workers v. Pennington · Continental Ore Company v. Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that the defendants conspired to keep plaintiffs’ drug ... off the interstate market and out of competition with ... a similar drug sold by defendants Baxter and Travenol, by influencing the Food and Drug Administration to deny fair consideration of the new drug applications filed by plaintiffs.... that defendants (who include an official of the FDA) carried out this conspiracy by suppressing, concealing and misconstruing information concerning the two drugs before the FDA; by arranging for the employment as a consultant to the FDA of a medical doctor who had a financial interest in Baxter, ...; by applying an unfair standard in judging [plaintiffs’ drug]; and by misrepresenting the safety and efficacy of [plaintiffs’ drug].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The basic concern of the courts of appeal (and one District Judge) in both Woods and Trucking Unlimited may be deemed the integrity of the regulatory process. No actions which impair the fair and impartial functioning of an administrative agency should be able to hide behind the cloak of an antitrust exemption.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(t)he essential is that the plaintiffs have a full and fair presentation of all their contentions before an impartial tribunal.”
1 later decision 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.