73 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 252,459 times 279 Legal Analyses
Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 266,381 times 365 Legal Analyses
Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife
504 U.S. 555 (1992) Cited 27,812 times 138 Legal Analyses
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"
Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Env't
523 U.S. 83 (1998) Cited 10,721 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court "act ultra vires" when it assumes "hypothetical jurisdiction" in order to rule on the merits
Warth v. Seldin
422 U.S. 490 (1975) Cited 11,858 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that Article III requires plaintiffs "to establish that, in fact, the asserted injury was the consequence of the defendants' actions"
Los Angeles v. Lyons
461 U.S. 95 (1983) Cited 7,500 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding there is no justiciable controversy where plaintiff had once been subjected to a chokehold
O'Shea v. Littleton
414 U.S. 488 (1974) Cited 4,082 times 5 Legal Analyses
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"
Mandarin v. Wildenstein
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 741 (N.Y. 2011) Cited 1,603 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff must allege a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was "false and known to be false"
Jones v. Rath Packing Co.
430 U.S. 519 (1977) Cited 1,187 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the presumption is weaker, if triggered at all, where there is not a tradition of state legislation
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly
533 U.S. 525 (2001) Cited 506 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a ban on outdoor advertising of smokeless tobacco and cigars within one thousand feet of a school or playground violated the First Amendment
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 345,620 times 922 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 349 - Deceptive acts and practices unlawful
N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 Cited 4,807 times 106 Legal Analyses
Granting "any person who has been injured by reason of any violation of this section" the right to "bring an action in his own name"
Section 321 - Definitions; generally
21 U.S.C. § 321 Cited 1,166 times 161 Legal Analyses
Defining “new drug”
Section 352 - Misbranded drugs and devices
21 U.S.C. § 352 Cited 739 times 73 Legal Analyses
Setting labeling requirements for drug products
Section 343 - Misbranded food
21 U.S.C. § 343 Cited 568 times 59 Legal Analyses
Setting labeling requirements for food products
Section 601 - Definitions
21 U.S.C. § 601 Cited 178 times 10 Legal Analyses
Defining "misbranded" meat product in part as one with "labeling is false or misleading in any particular"
Section 451 - Congressional statement of findings
21 U.S.C. § 451 Cited 102 times 2 Legal Analyses
In 21 U.S.C. § 451, Congress bases the entire PPIA on its finding that "[u]nwholesome, adulterated, or misbranded poultry products" hurt people and destroy markets for poultry.
Section 379r - National uniformity for nonprescription drugs
21 U.S.C. § 379r Cited 98 times 16 Legal Analyses
Labeling requirements for nonprescription drugs
Section 362 - Misbranded cosmetics
21 U.S.C. § 362 Cited 34 times 11 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting such labeling in cosmetics
Section 379s - Preemption for labeling or packaging of cosmetics
21 U.S.C. § 379s Cited 30 times 4 Legal Analyses
Labeling and packaging requirements for cosmetics
Section 100.100 - Misleading containers
21 C.F.R. § 100.100 Cited 43 times 13 Legal Analyses
Defining misbranded food containers
Section 301.2 - Definitions
9 C.F.R. § 301.2 Cited 22 times 3 Legal Analyses
Defining "dying, diseased, or disabled livestock" as including animals displaying a "lack of muscle coordination" or an "inability to walk normally or stand"
Section 317.8 - [Effective 5/17/2024] False or misleading labeling or practices generally; specific prohibitions and requirements for labels and containers
9 C.F.R. § 317.8 Cited 15 times 2 Legal Analyses
(a) No product or any of its wrappers, packaging, or other containers shall bear any false or misleading marking, label, or other labeling and no statement, word, picture, design, or device which conveys any false impression or gives any false indication of origin or quality or is otherwise false or misleading shall appear in any marking or other labeling. No product shall be wholly or partly enclosed in any wrapper, packaging, or other container that is so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading
Section 381.1 - Definitions
9 C.F.R. § 381.1 Cited 5 times 3 Legal Analyses
(a) For the purposes of the regulations in this part, unless otherwise required by the context, the singular form shall also import the plural and the masculine form shall also import the feminine, and vice versa. (b) For the purposes of such regulations, unless otherwise required by the context, the following terms shall be construed, respectively, to mean: Acceptable. "Acceptable" means suitable for the purpose intended and acceptable to the Administrator. Act. "Act" means the Poultry Products
Section 701.1 - Misbranding
21 C.F.R. § 701.1 Cited 5 times
Labeling “may be misleading” where it designates the cosmetic “by a name which includes or suggests the name of one or more but not all ... ingredients”
Section 201.60 - Principal display panel
21 C.F.R. § 201.60 Cited 3 times
The term principal display panel, as it applies to over-the-counter drugs in package form and as used in this part, means the part of a label that is most likely to be displayed, presented, shown, or examined under customary conditions of display for retail sale. The principal display panel shall be large enough to accommodate all the mandatory label information required to be placed thereon by this part with clarity and conspicuousness and without obscuring designs, vignettes, or crowding. Where
Section 201.62 - Declaration of net quantity of contents
21 C.F.R. § 201.62 Cited 3 times
(a) The label of an over-the-counter drug in package form shall bear a declaration of the net quantity of contents. This shall be expressed in the terms of weight, measure, numerical count, or a combination or numerical count and weight, measure, or size. The statement of quantity of drugs in tablet, capsule, ampule, or other unit form and the quantity of devices shall be expressed in terms of numerical count; the statement of quantity for drugs in other dosage forms shall be in terms of weight if
Section 701.10 - Principal display panel
21 C.F.R. § 701.10 Cited 1 times
The term principal display panel as it applies to cosmetics in package form and as used in this part, means the part of a label that is most likely to be displayed, presented, shown, or examined under customary conditions of display for retail sale. The principal display panel shall be large enough to accommodate all the mandatory label information required to be placed thereon by this part with clarity and conspicuousness and without obscuring designs, vignettes, or crowding. Where packages bear
Section 350.1 - Scope
21 C.F.R. § 350.1
(a) An over-the-counter antiperspirant drug product in a form suitable for topical administration is generally recognized as safe and effective and is not misbranded if it meets each condition in this part and each general condition established in § 330.1 of this chapter. (b) References in this part to regulatory sections of the Code of Federal Regulations are to chapter I of title 21 unless otherwise noted. 21 C.F.R. §350.1

Bimont et al v. Unilever United States, Inc.

73 Cited authorities

Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

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"

Holding that a court "act ultra vires" when it assumes "hypothetical jurisdiction" in order to rule on the merits

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

Holding there is no justiciable controversy where plaintiff had once been subjected to a chokehold

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"

Holding that plaintiff must allege a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was "false and known to be false"

Holding that the presumption is weaker, if triggered at all, where there is not a tradition of state legislation

Holding that a ban on outdoor advertising of smokeless tobacco and cigars within one thousand feet of a school or playground violated the First Amendment

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Granting "any person who has been injured by reason of any violation of this section" the right to "bring an action in his own name"

Defining “new drug”

Setting labeling requirements for drug products

Setting labeling requirements for food products

Defining "misbranded" meat product in part as one with "labeling is false or misleading in any particular"

In 21 U.S.C. § 451, Congress bases the entire PPIA on its finding that "[u]nwholesome, adulterated, or misbranded poultry products" hurt people and destroy markets for poultry.

Labeling requirements for nonprescription drugs

Prohibiting such labeling in cosmetics

Labeling and packaging requirements for cosmetics

Defining misbranded food containers

Defining "dying, diseased, or disabled livestock" as including animals displaying a "lack of muscle coordination" or an "inability to walk normally or stand"

Labeling “may be misleading” where it designates the cosmetic “by a name which includes or suggests the name of one or more but not all ... ingredients”