In re Barr Laboratories, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
930 F.2d 72 · 1991
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 33 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al. v. Gale A. Norton, Secretary of the Interior, et al. (2001), Forest Guardians v. Babbitt (1999)
39 federal appellate · 33 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. § 355 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
Relies on Heckler v. Campbell · Brock v. Pierce County · Carducci v. Regan · Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. Federal Communications Commission · Ralpho v. Bell
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the time agencies take to make decisions must be governed by a “rule of reason”; (2) where Congress has provided a timetable or other indication of the speed with which it expects the agency to proceed in the enabling statute, that statutory scheme may supply content for this rule of reason; (3) delays that might be reasonable in the sphere of economic regulation are less tolerable when human health and welfare are at stake; (4) the court should consider the effect of expediting delayed action on agency activities of a higher or competing priority; (5) the court should also take into account the nature and extent of the interests prejudiced by delay; and (6) the court need not “find any impropriety lurking behind agency lassitude in order to hold that agency action is ‘unreasonably delayed.’ ””
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Id. The court also noted that 24 [t]he agency is in a unique — and authoritative — position to view its projects as a whole, estimate the prospects for each, and allocate its resources in the optimal way. Such budget flexibility as Congress has allowed the agency is not for us to hijack. 25 Id. at 76. 26 The district court recognized the force of Barr in this case:”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a judicial order putting [the petitioner] at the head of the queue [would] simply move[] all others back one space and produce[] no net gain.”
4 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.