Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. v. Kleindienst’s Empirical Analysis
478 F.2d 1 · 1973
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 321 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 360A (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 371 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 376 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 802 (§ 102 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 874 (§ 504 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States · Permian Basin Area Rate Cases · Environmental Protection Agency v. Mink · Morgan v. United States · Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“across the board to all producers, wholesalers, and distributors ... as well as to pharmacies and physicians.” Id. at 13 . Hoffman was not in any special or unique circumstances, and the classification had only prospective application. Id. None of these factors are present in the STEN classification. 3 . York advertised kits for his STEN guns in a York Arms Company catalog as good weapons for those purchasers who”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The employee who presides at the reception of evidence pursuant to section 556 of this title shall make the recommended decision or initial decision required by section 557 of this ‘title, unless he becomes unavailable to the agency. Except to the extent required for the disposition of ex parte matters as authorized by law, such an employee may not— (1) consult a person or party on a fact in issue, unless on notice and opportunity for all parties to participate; or (2) be responsible to or subject to the supervision or direction of an employee or agent engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions for an agency. An employee or agent engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions for an agency in a case may not, in that or a factually related case, participate or advise in the decision, recommended decision, or agency review pursuant to section 557 of this title, except as witness or counsel in public proceedings. This subsection does not apply.— (A) in determining applications for initial licenses; (B) to proceedings involving the validity or application of rates, facilities, or practices of public utilities or carriers; or (C) to the agency or a member or members of the body comprising the agency.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“any drug which contains any quantity of a substance which the Attorney General, after investigation, has found to have, and by regulation designated as having, a potential for abuse because of its depressant or stimulant effect on the central nervous system or its hallucinogenic effect.”
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.