FDA v. R. J. Reynolds Vapor Co.’s Empirical Analysis
2025
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 16 U.S.C. § 1540 (§ 11 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 21 U.S.C. § 331 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 387a · 21 U.S.C. § 387j · 21 U.S.C. § 387l · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 33 U.S.C. § 921
Relies on Allen v. Wright · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation · Bennett v. Spear · William Marbury v. James Madison
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“there is 'no basis in text or prior practice' for limiting 'person adversely affected' to mean 'the applicant'—or, for that matter, the 'party' with whom the agency dealt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“describe a cause of action that only one person—the applicant manufacturer—could use”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.