Community Nutrition Institute v. Young’s Empirical Analysis
773 F.2d 1356 · 1985
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently November 2014 · most notably Sierra Club v. Thomas (1987), K N Energy, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (1992)
18 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 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. § 348 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Relies on Udall v. Tallman · Greater Boston Television Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission, Whdh, Inc., a Massachusettscorporation, Intervenor. Whdh, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Greater Boston Televisioncorporation, a Massachusetts Corporation, Intervenor. Charles River Civic Television, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Whdh, Inc., Boston Broadcastersinc., Intervenors. Whdh, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Boston Broadcasters, Inc., Intervenor. Greater Boston Tv Co., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Whdh, Inc., Boston Broadcastersinc., Intervenors · Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc. · Association of National Advertisers, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission · Brady v. Ohio
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“evidence that raises a material issue of fact on which a meaningful hearing might be held.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Mere differences in the weight or credence given to particular scientific studies, or in the numerical estimates of the average daily intake of [a substance], are insufficient. [We] will not substitute [our] judgment on highly technical and factual matters for that of the agency charged with the supervision of the industry.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[t]he judiciary is ill-equipped to conduct investigations and analyze facts of the type involved in this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.