Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 48 F.3d 965 - Bailey v. Johnson

Bailey v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

48 F.3d 965 · 1995

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
3
states following
February 2013
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently February 2013

7 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

130199520002010decided

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. § 301 (Animal Drug Amendments of 1968) · 21 U.S.C. § 337 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 353 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292

Relies on Cort v. Ash · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington · Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson Ex Rel. Thompson · California v. ARC America Corp. · Smithson v. United States

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

  1. “significant that Congress, before passing the FDCA, considered and rejected a version which would have allowed a private right of action for damages.... If a private right of action were recognized, the major advantages of enforcement through the FDA would be lost, including expertise, ability to solicit comment from appropriate sources, direct representation of the public interest, and a unitary enforcement policy.... The court concludes that the Tenth Circuit would agree with the analysis of its sibling circuits and hold that violations of the FDCA may not be alleged by private right of action.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “if the only relief the plaintiff actually wants is based on state rather than federal law ... In such a case the invocation of federal-question jurisdiction is in bad faith and must fail.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “Congress did not intend, either expressly or by implication, to create a private cause of action under the FDCA”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.