Ebner v. Fresh, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
838 F.3d 958 · 2016
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 301 (Animal Drug Amendments of 1968) · 21 U.S.C. § 362 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 379S (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Ashcroft v. Iqbal · 20 Cal. 4th 163 - Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. · Doe v. United States · Williams v. Gerber Products Co. · 105 Cal. App. 4th 496 - Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co.
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[P]laintiffs must do more than plausibly allege that a 'label might conceivably be misunderstood by some few consumers.' Plaintiffs must plausibly allege 'that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[the] district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made ....”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“show that 'members of the public are likely to be deceived.' " Id. (quoting Freeman v. Time, Inc. , 68 F.3d 285 , 289 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Bank of the West v. Superior Court , 2 Cal.4th 1254 , 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 538 , 833 P.2d 545 , 553 (1992) )) (quotations omitted). "Likely to deceive”
2 later decisions 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.