United States v. Burzynski Cancer Research Institute’s Empirical Analysis
819 F.2d 1301 · 1987
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Salas v. Carpenter (1992), Murray v. Earle (2005)
32 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 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. § 301 (Animal Drug Amendments of 1968) · 21 U.S.C. § 321 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 351 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2671
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Franks v. Delaware · Rakas v. Illinois
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Just as federal courts did with Rule 12.08’s federal predecessor, Tennessee courts have generally applied Tennessee Rule 12.08 without strict adherence to its text. In fact, although courts have cited the rule frequently, they have almost never attempted to construe the precise language of Rule 12.08. This latter phenomenon, given the rule, is simply carrying to a higher level the maxim that “Equity will not do a vain act.” On the assumption that Rule 12.08 should have some meaning, we suggest that it be read to give effect to its intent and, to the extent possible, its text. If Rule 12.08 is not to produce absurd results, the provision for waiver of defenses should be read as referring only to those defenses that may be raised by a Rule 12.02 pre-answer motion. When Rule 12.08 is so limited, its natural and probable meaning is as follows: A. A party may raise the following “defenses” by answer or by pre-answer motion: 1. lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; 2. lack of jurisdiction over the person; 3. improper venue; 4. insufficiency of process; 5. insufficiency of service of process; 6. failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted; 7. failure to join an indispensable party; and 8. the lack of capacity of a party to sue or be sued. B. A party who files a pre-answer motion pursuant to Rule 12.02 waives any of the following defenses that are not included in the motion: 1. lack of jurisdiction over the person; 2. improper venue; 3. insufficiency of process; a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Malley , the Court held that an officer may not rely on the judgment of a judicial officer in finding that probable cause exists if a reasonably well-trained officer would have known that his affidavit failed to establish probable cause and that he should not have applied for the warrant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]s an incident to the separation of powers founded in the Constitution, the courts are not to interfere with the free exercise of the discretionary powers of the attorneys of the United States in their control over criminal prosecutions.”
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.