Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife

Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"

Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council

Holding that courts "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress"

Warth v. Seldin

Holding that Article III requires plaintiffs "to establish that, in fact, the asserted injury was the consequence of the defendants' actions"

Powers v. Ohio

Holding that a white defendant has standing to challenge strikes of black jurors

Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp.

Holding that plaintiffs need show only that "a discriminatory purpose has been a motivating factor in the decision," because, after all, "[r]arely can it be said that a legislature or administrative body operating under a broad mandate made a decision motivated solely by a single concern, or even that a particular purpose was the ‘dominant’ or ‘primary’ one."

FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas

Holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction (quoting McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936))

O'Shea v. Littleton

Holding that "[p]ast exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief ... if unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse effects"

Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org.

Holding plaintiffs who sued IRS lacked standing where they hoped reversal of IRS rule would " ‘discourage’ hospitals from denying their services to" plaintiffs, but whether hospitals had denied services based on the existing rule remained unclear and, even if the rule were reversed, hospitals would remain free to not provide services to plaintiffs

Singleton v. Wulff

Holding that federal appellate courts may raise issues sua sponte where "injustice might otherwise result"

Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman

Holding that an organization suffers injury in fact when its key activities are "perceptibly impaired" and its resources "consequent[ly] drain[ed]"

Section 702 - Right of review

Granting judicial review of "agency action"

Section 704 - Actions reviewable

Granting judicial review over " final agency action"

Section 3604 - Discrimination in the sale or rental of housing and other prohibited practices

Requiring any "accommodation" in "rules, policies, practices, or services" to be "reasonable"

Section 355 - New drugs

Granting the court discretion to change the date on which an ANDA may be approved if "either party to the action failed to reasonably cooperate in expediting the action"

Section 3612 - Enforcement by Secretary

Authorizing fee entitlement only for "plaintiffs"

Section 353 - Exemptions and consideration for certain drugs, devices, and biological products

Requiring a prescription drug label to bear the symbol "Rx only"

Section 314.50 - Content and format of an NDA

Recognizing the proprietary nature of DSD and SP specifications by requiring that each ANDA applicant provide its own distinct specifications

Section 10.25 - Initiation of administrative proceedings

Including forms under 21 C.F.R. § 314.50 among the forms that constitute a "petition"

Section 10.45 - Court review of final administrative action; exhaustion of administrative remedies

Providing that " request that the Commissioner take or refrain from taking any form of administrative action must first be the subject of a final administrative decision based on a petition submitted under § 10.25 . . . before any legal action is filed in a court complaining of the action or failure to act"

Section 314.125 - Refusal to approve an NDA

Requiring FDA to reject application when proposed labeling is "false or misleading in any particular"

Section 314.71 - Procedures for submission of a supplement to an approved application

Section 310.200 - Prescription-exemption procedure

Section 310.201 - Exemption for certain drugs limited by new-drug applications to prescription sale