Simpson v. Young’s Empirical Analysis
854 F.2d 1429 · 1988
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 2018
10 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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) · 21 U.S.C. § 376 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission · Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Newman Oil Co. · Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. United States
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“require[ ] separate, specific rulings on each exception to a decision. The pertinent regulation speaks of 'significant' objections.... The agency need only state the main reasons for its decision and indicate that it has considered the most important objections.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“need only state the main reasons for its decision and indicate that it has considered the most important objections.”
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.