Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 718 F.2d 1174 - Chaney v. Heckler

Chaney v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis

718 F.2d 1174 · 1983

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
July 2021
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2021 · most notably Heckler v. Chaney (1985), Campbell v. Wood (1994)

20 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions

35019831990200020102020decided

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. § 321 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 331 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 332 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 333 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 335 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 352 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 355 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)

Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · United States v. Diebold, Inc. · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Gregg v. Georgia · Vaca v. Sipes

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

  1. “The better explanation for the practice-of-medicine exemption is that Congress did not want to interfere with physicians’ treatment of their patients. New uses for drugs are often discovered after FDA approves the package inserts that explain a drug’s approved uses. Congress would have created havoc in the practice of medicine had it required physicians to follow the expensive and time-consuming procedure of obtaining FDA approval before putting drugs to new uses. Thus Congress exempted the practice of medicine from the Act so as not to limit a physician’s ability to treat his patients.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “applies, according to the provisions thereof, except to the extent that--(1) statutes preclude judicial review; or (2) agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Inquiry into the statutory scheme and legislative history of the FDCA and subsequent amendments reveals a specific congressional intent to prevent misbranding of drugs at each stage of the distribution process from manufacturer to patient.”
    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.