49 Cited authorities

Warth v. Seldin
422 U.S. 490 (1975) Cited 11,862 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"
Valley Forge College v. Americans United
454 U.S. 464 (1982) Cited 4,970 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees ... is not an injury sufficient to confer standing under Art. III, even though the disagreement is phrased in constitutional terms"
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr
518 U.S. 470 (1996) Cited 2,417 times 35 Legal Analyses
Holding that the presence of a state-law damages remedy for violations of FDA requirements does not impose an additional requirement upon medical device manufacturers but "merely provides another reason for manufacturers to comply with . . . federal law"
Wyeth v. Levine
555 U.S. 555 (2009) Cited 1,432 times 101 Legal Analyses
Holding that the FDA's drug labeling judgments pursuant to the FDCA did not obstacle preempt state law products liability claims
Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
463 U.S. 85 (1983) Cited 3,511 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal common law of ERISA preempts state law in the interpretation of ERISA benefit plans
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
549 U.S. 497 (2007) Cited 1,158 times 97 Legal Analyses
Holding that denials of petitions for rulemaking are judicially reviewable
Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
529 U.S. 120 (2000) Cited 1,505 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that Congress had not yet empowered the FDA to regulate tobacco products
Baze v. Rees
553 U.S. 35 (2008) Cited 1,038 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding in the Eighth Amendment context that the government's choice of drug can violate the Constitution
Gonzales v. Oregon
546 U.S. 243 (2006) Cited 560 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that statute did not delegate authority to Attorney General to make medical judgments
Golden State Transit Corp. v. Los Angeles
493 U.S. 103 (1989) Cited 720 times
Holding with regard to the National Labor Relations Act, a statute enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause rather than the Spending Clause, that a right implied from the structure of the statute but not explicitly stated is enforceable under § 1983
Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Cited 486,856 times 688 Legal Analyses
Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 328,736 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 1331 - Federal question
28 U.S.C. § 1331 Cited 97,409 times 134 Legal Analyses
Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 94,988 times 653 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Section 802 - Definitions
21 U.S.C. § 802 Cited 3,934 times 80 Legal Analyses
Defining "marijuana"
Section 353 - Exemptions and consideration for certain drugs, devices, and biological products
21 U.S.C. § 353 Cited 298 times 20 Legal Analyses
Requiring a prescription drug label to bear the symbol "Rx only"
Section 822 - Persons required to register
21 U.S.C. § 822 Cited 207 times 8 Legal Analyses
Addressing registration and conditions governing the authorized distribution of controlled substances
Section 829 - Prescriptions
21 U.S.C. § 829 Cited 170 times 18 Legal Analyses
Authorizing prescriptions for drugs on Schedule II, III, IV, and V only
Section 903 - Application of State law
21 U.S.C. § 903 Cited 120 times 5 Legal Analyses
Providing that federal forfeiture law should not be "construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates, . . . unless there is a positive conflict" between federal and state law

Ringo, et al v. Lombardi et al

49 Cited authorities

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

Holding that "the psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees ... is not an injury sufficient to confer standing under Art. III, even though the disagreement is phrased in constitutional terms"

Holding that the presence of a state-law damages remedy for violations of FDA requirements does not impose an additional requirement upon medical device manufacturers but "merely provides another reason for manufacturers to comply with . . . federal law"

Holding that the FDA's drug labeling judgments pursuant to the FDCA did not obstacle preempt state law products liability claims

Holding that federal common law of ERISA preempts state law in the interpretation of ERISA benefit plans

Holding that denials of petitions for rulemaking are judicially reviewable

Holding that Congress had not yet empowered the FDA to regulate tobacco products

Holding in the Eighth Amendment context that the government's choice of drug can violate the Constitution

Holding that statute did not delegate authority to Attorney General to make medical judgments

Holding with regard to the National Labor Relations Act, a statute enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause rather than the Spending Clause, that a right implied from the structure of the statute but not explicitly stated is enforceable under § 1983

Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Defining "marijuana"

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

Addressing registration and conditions governing the authorized distribution of controlled substances

Authorizing prescriptions for drugs on Schedule II, III, IV, and V only

Providing that federal forfeiture law should not be "construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates, . . . unless there is a positive conflict" between federal and state law