102N94 Send to: BRUNNER, GWENDOLYN UNIVERSITY OF

advertisement
102N94
Send to:
BRUNNER, GWENDOLYN
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
218 BRUTON GEER
GAINESVILLE, FL 32611
Time of Request: Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Client ID/Project Name:
Number of Lines: 10258
Job Number:
2822:175871801
Research Information
Service:
Shepard's(R)
Print Request: Shepard's Batch Delivery
00:37:44 EST
Page 1
Shepard's Batch Delivery Request Report
Shepard's Citation: 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195 - FULL
References: 1918
Restricted: No
FOCUS Terms: No
Deliver Shepard's Report: Yes - Completed
Deliver Text of Shepardized Cite: Yes - Completed
Selected Citing Documents: None Selected
Date of Request: 09/08/2009
Citing
Reference
Number
Citations
Full
Text
Request
Key:
Completed - Full-text retrieved and delivered below.
Table Case - Multiple documents found for this citation; insufficient information to choose one.
Error - Full-text could not be retrieved and/or delivered.
LexisNexis is a trademark, and LEXSEE and LEXSTAT and Shepard's are registered trademarks of Reed Elsevier
Properties, Inc., used under license. ALR is a registered trademark of West Licensing Corp.
Copyright **** LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Page 2
Copyright 2009 SHEPARD'S(R) - 1918 Citing references
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 120 S. Ct. 1291, 146 L. Ed. 2d 121, 2000 U.S. LEXIS
2195, 68 U.S.L.W. 4194, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 161, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 178, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service
2215, 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1435, 2000 D.A.R. 2987 (2000)
Restrictions: Unrestricted
FOCUS(TM) Terms: No FOCUS terms
Print Format: FULL
Citing Ref. Signal: Hidden
SHEPARD'S SUMMARY
Unrestricted Shepard's Summary
No subsequent appellate
history. Prior history
available.
Citing References:
Cautionary Analyses: Distinguished (16)
Positive Analyses:
Followed (54), Concurring Opinion (11)
Neutral Analyses:
Conflict.Authority (2), Dissenting Op. (36), Explained (4), Harmonized (1), Quest.
Precedent (3)
Other Sources:
Law Reviews (595), Secondary Sources (1), Statutes (5), Treatises (19), Annotations (1),
Other Citations (9), Court Documents (802)
LexisNexis Headnotes:
HN1 (244), HN2 (19), HN4 (1), HN5 (12), HN6 (9), HN7 (56), HN8 (37), HN9 (19),
HN12 (6), HN13 (55), HN14 (25)
PRIOR HISTORY ( 6 citing references )
1.
Coyne Beahm, Inc. v. United States FDA, 958 F. Supp. 1060, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5453 (M.D.N.C. 1997)
2.
Reported at:
Coyne Beahm, Inc. v. United States FDA, 966 F. Supp. 1374, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17198 (M.D.N.C.
1997)
3.
Reversed by, Vacated by, Sub nomine at:
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FDA, 153 F.3d 155, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 18821 (4th Cir.
N.C. 1998)
4.
Rehearing, en banc, denied by:
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FDA, 161 F.3d 764, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 28409 (4th
Cir. 1998)
5.
Writ of certiorari granted:
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 526 U.S. 1086, 119 S. Ct. 1495, 143 L. Ed. 2d 650,
1999 U.S. LEXIS 2981, 67 U.S.L.W. 3652, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2958, 99 D.A.R. 3824
(1999)
Affirmed by (CITATION YOU ENTERED):
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 120 S. Ct. 1291, 146 L. Ed. 2d 121,
Page 3
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195, 68 U.S.L.W. 4194, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 161, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed.
S 178, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2215, 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1435, 2000 D.A.R. 2987 (2000)
6.
Questioned by:
B & G Enters. v. United States, 48 Fed. Cl. 866, 2001 U.S. Claims LEXIS 41 (2001)
CITING DECISIONS ( 489 citing decisions )
U.S. SUPREME COURT
7.
Cited by:
Corley v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1558, 173 L. Ed. 2d 443, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 2512, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed.
S 757 (U.S. 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
129 S. Ct. 1558 p.1567
173 L. Ed. 2d 443 p.455
8.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Carcieri v. Salazar, 129 S. Ct. 1058, 172 L. Ed. 2d 791, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 1633, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S
629 (U.S. 2009)
129 S. Ct. 1058 p.1076
172 L. Ed. 2d 791 p.813
9.
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
Rowe v. N.H. Motor Transp. Ass'n, 128 S. Ct. 989, 169 L. Ed. 2d 933, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 2010, 76 U.S.L.W.
4102, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 89, 29 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 783 (2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
128 S. Ct. 989 p.999
169 L. Ed. 2d 933 p.943
10.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Ali v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214, 128 S. Ct. 831, 169 L. Ed. 2d 680, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 1212, 76
U.S.L.W. 4057, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 53 (2008)
128 S. Ct. 831 p.848
169 L. Ed. 2d 680 p.700
11.
Cited by:
Stoneridge Inv. Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S. 148, 128 S. Ct. 761, 169 L. Ed. 2d 627,
2008 U.S. LEXIS 1091, 76 U.S.L.W. 4039, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 46, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P94556
(2008)
128 S. Ct. 761 p.771
169 L. Ed. 2d 627 p.641
12.
Cited by:
Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 127 S. Ct. 2518, 168 L. Ed. 2d 467,
2007 U.S. LEXIS 8312, 75 U.S.L.W. 4543, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 454, 64 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1513,
37 Envtl. L. Rep. 20153 (2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
551 U.S. 644 p.666
127 S. Ct. 2518 p.2534
168 L. Ed. 2d 467 p.486
Page 4
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
13.
Cited by:
Zuni Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 89 v. Dep't of Educ., 550 U.S. 81, 127 S. Ct. 1534, 167 L. Ed. 2d 449, 2007 U.S.
LEXIS 4335, 75 U.S.L.W. 4198, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 143 (2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
550 U.S. 81 p.98
127 S. Ct. 1534 p.1546
167 L. Ed. 2d 449 p.464
14.
Distinguished by, Cited by:
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 127 S. Ct. 1438, 167 L. Ed. 2d 248, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 3785, 75
U.S.L.W. 4149, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 128, 63 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 2057, 37 Envtl. L. Rep. 20075
(2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN6, HN7, HN8, HN9
Distinguished by:
549 U.S. 497 p.530
127 S. Ct. 1438 p.1461
167 L. Ed. 2d 248 p.275
Cited by:
549 U.S. 497 p.512
127 S. Ct. 1438 p.1450
167 L. Ed. 2d 248 p.264
167 L. Ed. 2d 248 p.276
15.
Cited by:
BP Am. Prod. Co. v. Burton, 549 U.S. 84, 127 S. Ct. 638, 166 L. Ed. 2d 494, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 9586, 75
U.S.L.W. 4023, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 19, 163 Oil & Gas Rep. 807 (2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
549 U.S. 84 p.99
127 S. Ct. 638 p.648
166 L. Ed. 2d 494 p.508
16.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 126 S. Ct. 904, 163 L. Ed. 2d 748, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 767, 74 U.S.L.W.
4068, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 49 (2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN2
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
546 U.S. 243 p.291
126 S. Ct. 904 p.935
163 L. Ed. 2d 748 p.789
Cited by:
546 U.S. 243 p.267
126 S. Ct. 904 p.921
163 L. Ed. 2d 748 p.774
17.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co., 537 U.S. 149, 123 S. Ct. 748, 154 L. Ed. 2d 653, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 752, 71
U.S.L.W. 4041, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 35, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Service 419, 2003 D.A.R. 501, 29
Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2089 (2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN14
154 L. Ed. 2d 653 p.675
537 U.S. 149 p.174
Page 5
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
18.
Cited by:
Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81, 122 S. Ct. 1155, 152 L. Ed. 2d 167, 2002 U.S. LEXIS
1936, 70 U.S.L.W. 4191, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 151, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2475, 2002 D.A.R.
3017, 82 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P40921, 27 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1865, 145 Lab. Cas. (CCH)
P34457, 7 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1153 (2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN14
122 S. Ct. 1155 p.1162
152 L. Ed. 2d 167 p.178
535 U.S. 81 p.91
19.
Cited by:
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525, 121 S. Ct. 2404, 150 L. Ed. 2d 532, 2001 U.S. LEXIS 4911,
69 U.S.L.W. 4582, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 470, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5421, 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R.
3333, 2001 D.A.R. 6699, 29 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2121 (2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5, HN7
533 U.S. 525 p.557
121 S. Ct. 2404 p.2423
150 L. Ed. 2d 532 p.561
20.
Cited by:
Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 121 S. Ct. 903, 149 L. Ed. 2d 1, 2001 U.S. LEXIS 1952, 69
U.S.L.W. 4136, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 101, 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1098, 51 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 2089,
31 Envtl. L. Rep. 20512 (2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN5, HN7
531 U.S. 457 p.466
531 U.S. 457 p.484
121 S. Ct. 903 p.908
121 S. Ct. 903 p.918
149 L. Ed. 2d 1 p.12
149 L. Ed. 2d 1 p.24
21.
Cited by:
Vt. Agency of Natural Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 120 S. Ct. 1858, 146 L. Ed. 2d
836, 2000 U.S. LEXIS 3428, 68 U.S.L.W. 4399, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 336, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service
3975, 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 2799, 2000 D.A.R. 5319, 50 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1545, 30 Envtl. L. Rep.
20622, 16 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 417 (2000)
529 U.S. 765 p.786
120 S. Ct. 1858 p.1870
146 L. Ed. 2d 836 p.854
1ST CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
22.
Cited by:
Good v. Altria Group, Inc., 501 F.3d 29, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 21088, 2007-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P75877
(1st Cir. Me. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN13
501 F.3d 29 p.57
23.
Cited by:
Neighborhood Ass'n of the Back Bay, Inc. v. Fed. Transit Admin., 463 F.3d 50, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS
23394, 12 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) P12-180, 18 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 772 (1st Cir. Mass.
2006)
463 F.3d 50 p.66
Page 6
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
24.
Cited by:
N.H. Motor Transp. Ass'n v. Rowe, 448 F.3d 66, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 12264 (1st Cir. Me. 2006)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
448 F.3d 66 p.82
25.
Cited by:
Succar v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 8, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 110 (1st Cir. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1,
HN7
394 F.3d 8 p.30
394 F.3d 8 p.32
26.
Cited by:
Ortega v. Star-Kist Foods, Inc., 370 F.3d 124, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 10714, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P17013
(1st Cir. P.R. 2004)
370 F.3d 124 p.143
27.
Cited by:
Philip Morris Inc. v. Reilly, 267 F.3d 45, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 22348, 60 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1545 (1st
Cir. Mass. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
267 F.3d 45 p.66
28.
Cited by:
United States v. Prigmore, 243 F.3d 1, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 3977 (1st Cir. Mass. 2001) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN2
243 F.3d 1 p.18
29.
Cited by:
Consolidated Cigar Corp. v. Reilly, 218 F.3d 30, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 16977 (1st Cir. Mass. 2000)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN8, HN9, HN13
218 F.3d 30 p.45
1ST CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
30.
Cited by:
Valle-Ortiz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 385 F. Supp. 2d 126, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19202 (D.P.R.
2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN13
385 F. Supp. 2d 126 p.133
31.
Cited by:
Ramos v. Philip Morris, Inc., 414 F. Supp. 2d 115, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21893, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep.
P17297 (D.P.R. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN13
414 F. Supp. 2d 115 p.118
32.
Cited by:
Rivera v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 368 F. Supp. 2d 148, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8214 (D.P.R. 2005)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN13
Page 7
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
368 F. Supp. 2d 148 p.154
33.
Cited by:
Johnson v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 345 F. Supp. 2d 16, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23913 (D.
Mass. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN13
345 F. Supp. 2d 16 p.21
34.
Cited by:
Prado-Alvarez v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 313 F. Supp. 2d 61, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6059 (D.P.R.
2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN13
313 F. Supp. 2d 61 p.66
35.
Cited by:
Cruz Vargas v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 218 F. Supp. 2d 109, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17430 (D.P.R.
2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN13
218 F. Supp. 2d 109 p.118
36.
Cited by:
United States v. Nunez, 127 F. Supp. 2d 53, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18789 (D.P.R. 2000) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
127 F. Supp. 2d 53 p.59
2ND CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
37.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
United States v. Mem'l Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 563 F.3d 19, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 6397, 103
A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1409, Unemployment Ins. Rep. (CCH) P14355C, 2009-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50319
(2d Cir. N.Y. 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN6, HN8
563 F.3d 19 p.37
38.
Cited by:
N.Y. State Rest. Ass'n v. N.Y. City Bd. of Health, 556 F.3d 114, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2905 (2d Cir. N.Y.
2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
556 F.3d 114 p.129
39.
Cited by:
United States v. Connolly, 552 F.3d 86, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 24975 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2008) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 24975
40.
Cited by:
O&G Indus. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 537 F.3d 153, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16956 (2d Cir. Conn. 2008)
537 F.3d 153 p.161
41.
Cited by:
McLaughlin v. Am. Tobacco Co., 522 F.3d 215, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 7093 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2008)
Page 8
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
522 F.3d 215 p.219
42.
Cited by:
Cohen v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 498 F.3d 111, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 18620 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2007)
498 F.3d 111 p.121
43.
Cited by:
Shi Liang Lin v. United States DOJ, 494 F.3d 296, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 16842 (2d Cir. 2007) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
494 F.3d 296 p.307
44.
Among conflicting authorities noted in:
Coke v. Long Island Care at Home, Ltd., 376 F.3d 118, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 15191, 150 Lab. Cas. (CCH)
P34879, 9 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1377 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2004)
376 F.3d 118 p.127
45.
Cited by:
NRDC v. Abraham, 355 F.3d 179, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 414, 57 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1833 (2d Cir.
N.Y. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
355 F.3d 179 p.195
46.
Followed by, Cited by:
Nutritional Health Alliance v. FDA, 318 F.3d 92, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 921 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2003)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN2, HN7
Followed by:
318 F.3d 92 p.102
318 F.3d 92 p.104
Cited by:
318 F.3d 92 p.97
47.
Cited by:
United States v. Manas, 272 F.3d 159, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 25285 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2001) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
272 F.3d 159 p.168
48.
Cited by:
United States v. Manas, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 25373 (2d Cir. N.Y. Nov. 27, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 25373
49.
Cited by:
New York v. FCC, 267 F.3d 91, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 21536 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2001)
267 F.3d 91 p.103
50.
Cited by:
Page 9
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
GE v. Commissioner, 245 F.3d 149, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 5412, 87 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1490, 2001-1 U.S.
Tax Cas. (CCH) P50329 (2d Cir. 2001)
245 F.3d 149 p.156
51.
Cited by:
SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare, L.P. v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 211 F.3d 21, 2000 U.S. App.
LEXIS 6200, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P28058, 54 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1317 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2000)
211 F.3d 21 p.28
2ND CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
52.
Cited by:
Vasilas v. Subaru of Am., Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71615 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2009)
53.
Cited by:
Richards v. Napolitano, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55253 (E.D.N.Y. June 29, 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55253
54.
Cited by:
NRDC, Inc. v. United States Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n, 597 F. Supp. 2d 370, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
8265 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
597 F. Supp. 2d 370 p.381
55.
Cited by:
Cohen v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 608 F. Supp. 2d 330, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5823 (E.D.N.Y. 2009)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
608 F. Supp. 2d 330 p.342
56.
Cited by:
Kellogg v. Wyeth, 612 F. Supp. 2d 421, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104073, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P18149 (D.
Vt. 2008)
612 F. Supp. 2d 421 p.431
57.
Cited by:
N.Y. State Rest. Ass'n v. N.Y. City Bd. of Health, 509 F. Supp. 2d 351, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66935
(S.D.N.Y. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
509 F. Supp. 2d 351 p.361
58.
Cited by:
Tuosto v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61669 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2007) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN9
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61669
59.
Cited by:
Jacobs v. N.Y. Foundling Hosp., 483 F. Supp. 2d 251, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27710, 154 Lab. Cas. (CCH)
P35281, 12 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 910 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
Page 10
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
483 F. Supp. 2d 251 p.260
60.
Cited by:
Schwab v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F. Supp. 2d 992, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73196 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN13
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73196 p.27
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73196 p.102
61.
Cited by:
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency v. Spitzer, 396 F. Supp. 2d 383, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23209
(S.D.N.Y. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
396 F. Supp. 2d 383 p.393
62.
Cited by:
Zaranska v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 400 F. Supp. 2d 500, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17559
(E.D.N.Y. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
400 F. Supp. 2d 500 p.508
63.
Cited by:
Pfeiffer v. Integrated Fund Servs., Inc., 371 F. Supp. 2d 502, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9306, Fed. Sec. L. Rep.
(CCH) P93259 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
371 F. Supp. 2d 502 p.509
64.
Cited by:
Cohen v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45466 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2005) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45466
65.
Cited by:
Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Burke, 319 F. Supp. 2d 275, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9372 (D. Conn. 2004)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN14
319 F. Supp. 2d 275 p.282
66.
Cited by:
Grand River Enters. Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16995 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2003)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16995
67.
Cited by:
Brae Loch Manor Health Care Facility v. Thompson, 287 F. Supp. 2d 191, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18482
(W.D.N.Y. 2003)
287 F. Supp. 2d 191 p.193
68.
Cited by:
United States v. Curtis, 245 F. Supp. 2d 512, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2349 (W.D.N.Y. 2003)
245 F. Supp. 2d 512 p.514
Page 11
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
69.
Cited by:
In re Simon II Litig., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25632 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7,
HN8, HN13
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25632
70.
Cited by:
In re Simon II Litig., 211 F.R.D. 86, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19773 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN7, HN8, HN13
211 F.R.D. 86 p.112
71.
Cited by:
Pfohl Bros. Landfill Site Steering Comm. v. Allied Waste Sys., 255 F. Supp. 2d 134, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
26068 (W.D.N.Y. 2002)
255 F. Supp. 2d 134 p.154
72.
Distinguished by:
Nutritional Health Alliance v. FDA, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22330 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2000) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN7
2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22330
73.
Cited by:
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.J., Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 113 F. Supp. 2d 345, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
13444, RICO Bus. Disp. Guide P9948 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN13
113 F. Supp. 2d 345 p.355
74.
Cited by:
Falise v. American Tobacco Co., 94 F. Supp. 2d 316, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5758, RICO Bus. Disp. Guide
P9882 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN8, HN13
94 F. Supp. 2d 316 p.321
3RD CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
75.
Cited by:
United States v. Lewis, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 10866 (3d Cir. Pa. May 20, 2009)
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 10866
76.
Cited by:
United States v. Banks, 300 Fed. Appx. 145, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 24869 (3d Cir. Pa. 2008) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
300 Fed. Appx. 145 p.151
77.
Explained by, Cited by:
United States v. Geiser, 527 F.3d 288, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 12366 (3d Cir. Pa. 2008) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN8
Explained by:
Page 12
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
527 F.3d 288 p.293
Cited by:
527 F.3d 288 p.292
78.
Cited by:
Core Communs., Inc. v. Verizon Pa., Inc., 493 F.3d 333, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 17001 (3d Cir. Pa. 2007)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN14
493 F.3d 333 p.339
79.
Followed by:
Core Communs., Inc. v. Verizon Pa., Inc., 485 F.3d 757, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 10971, 41 Comm. Reg. (P
& F) 380 (3d Cir. Pa. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN14
485 F.3d 757 p.759
80.
Followed by:
United States v. Jones, 471 F.3d 478, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 31926 (3d Cir. Pa. 2006) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
471 F.3d 478 p.482
81.
Cited by:
Alaka v. AG of the United States, 456 F.3d 88, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 18020 (3d Cir. 2006)
456 F.3d 88 p.106
82.
Cited by:
Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 27413 (3d Cir. N.J. 2005)
432 F.3d 235 p.249
83.
Cited by:
Mendez-Reyes v. AG of the United States, 428 F.3d 187, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 23552 (3d Cir. 2005)
428 F.3d 187 p.191
84.
Cited by:
United States v. Lane Labs-USA, Inc., 427 F.3d 219, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 22734 (3d Cir. N.J. 2005)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
427 F.3d 219 p.227
85.
Cited by:
Santiago v. GMAC Mortg. Group, Inc., 417 F.3d 384, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 16078 (3d Cir. Pa. 2005)
417 F.3d 384 p.388
86.
Cited by:
Cai Luan Chen v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 221, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 17729 (3d Cir. 2004) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
381 F.3d 221 p.232
Page 13
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
87.
Cited by:
Madison v. Resources for Human Dev., Inc., 233 F.3d 175, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 29644, 142 Lab. Cas.
(CCH) P34172, 6 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 961 (3d Cir. Pa. 2000)
233 F.3d 175 p.185
3RD CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
88.
Followed by:
Weatherbee v. Richman, 595 F. Supp. 2d 607, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4402 (W.D. Pa. 2009) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
595 F. Supp. 2d 607 p.616
89.
Cited by:
Knipe v. SmithKline Beecham, 583 F. Supp. 2d 553, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67424 (E.D. Pa. 2008)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN13
583 F. Supp. 2d 553 p.584
90.
Distinguished by:
Rivera v. Brickman Group, Ltd., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1167, 155 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P35388, 13 Wage &
Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 275 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 7, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN6, HN7, HN8, HN9, HN12,
HN13
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1167
91.
Followed by:
Rodriguez v. Bush, 367 F. Supp. 2d 765, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7641 (E.D. Pa. 2005)
367 F. Supp. 2d 765 p.770
92.
Cited by:
United States v. Lane Labs-USA, Inc., 324 F. Supp. 2d 547, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13277 (D.N.J. 2004)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN5, HN6, HN7, HN8
324 F. Supp. 2d 547 p.563
93.
Followed by:
Jeter v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 294 F. Supp. 2d 681, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24493 (W.D. Pa.
2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN13
294 F. Supp. 2d 681 p.685
94.
Distinguished by:
Bonneville Int'l Corp. v. Peters, 153 F. Supp. 2d 763, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10919, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH)
P28295, 59 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1622 (E.D. Pa. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN8
153 F. Supp. 2d 763 p.773
95.
Cited by:
Fec v. Specter '96, 150 F. Supp. 2d 797, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10648 (E.D. Pa. 2001) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
150 F. Supp. 2d 797 p.806
Page 14
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
3RD CIRCUIT - U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS
96.
Cited by:
Asurion Ins. Servs. v. Amp'd Mobile, Inc. (In re Amp'd Mobile, Inc.), 377 B.R. 478, 2007 Bankr. LEXIS
3812, 49 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 32 (Bankr. D. Del. 2007)
377 B.R. 478 p.487
4TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
97.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
United States v. Hatcher, 560 F.3d 222, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 27430 (4th Cir. Va. 2008) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
560 F.3d 222 p.232
98.
Cited by:
United States ex rel. Wilson v. Graham County Soil & Water Conservation Dist., 528 F.3d 292, 2008 U.S.
App. LEXIS 12264 (4th Cir. N.C. 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
528 F.3d 292 p.301
99.
Cited by:
Andrews v. United States, 441 F.3d 220, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 1785 (4th Cir. Va. 2006) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
441 F.3d 220 p.225
100.
Cited by:
Scott v. United States, 328 F.3d 132, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 8293, 91 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2100, 2003-1 U.S.
Tax Cas. (CCH) P50428 (4th Cir. Va. 2003)
328 F.3d 132 p.139
101.
Cited by:
Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, Inc. v. Rivenburgh, 317 F.3d 425, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 1487, 55
Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1929, 33 Envtl. L. Rep. 20149, 159 Oil & Gas Rep. 199 (4th Cir. W. Va. 2003)
317 F.3d 425 p.441
102.
Cited by:
Sigma-Tau Pharms. v. Schwetz, 288 F.3d 141, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 8389 (4th Cir. Md. 2002) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN13
103.
Cited by:
CFTC v. Baragosh, 278 F.3d 319, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 856 (4th Cir. Md. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
278 F.3d 319 p.328
104.
Cited by:
Malm v. United States INS, 16 Fed. Appx. 197, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 18178 (4th Cir. 2001)
16 Fed. Appx. 197 p.202
Page 15
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
105.
Cited by:
NISH v. Cohen, 247 F.3d 197, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 7081 (4th Cir. Va. 2001)
247 F.3d 197 p.202
106.
Cited by:
AEL Asia Express (H.K.), Ltd. v. American Bankers Ins. Co., 5 Fed. Appx. 106, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS
2967 (4th Cir. Md. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
5 Fed. Appx. 106 p.109
4TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
107.
Cited by:
Structural Concrete Prods., LLC v. Clarendon Am. Ins. Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61714 (E.D. Va. Aug.
22, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61714
108.
Cited by:
Epie v. Caterisano, 402 F. Supp. 2d 589, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31619 (D. Md. 2005) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
402 F. Supp. 2d 589 p.591
109.
Cited by:
Nat'l City Bank v. Turnbaugh, 367 F. Supp. 2d 805, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6639 (D. Md. 2005) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN14
367 F. Supp. 2d 805 p.818
110.
Followed by:
Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am. v. Univ. of N.C. at Chapel Hill, 367 F. Supp. 2d 945, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
7936, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P28991, 74 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1661 (M.D.N.C. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
367 F. Supp. 2d 945 p.953
111.
Cited by:
ePlus Tech., Inc. v. Aboud, 155 F. Supp. 2d 692, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11799 (E.D. Va. 2001) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
155 F. Supp. 2d 692 p.699
112.
Cited by:
United States v. Undetermined Quantities of Articles of Drug, 145 F. Supp. 2d 692, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
8110 (D. Md. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN8
145 F. Supp. 2d 692 p.698
113.
Distinguished by:
Little v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 243 F. Supp. 2d 480, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22067 (D.S.C.
2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
Page 16
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
243 F. Supp. 2d 480 p.494
4TH CIRCUIT - U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS
114.
Cited by:
McDow v. Sours (In re Sours), 350 B.R. 261, 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 2771 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2006) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
350 B.R. 261 p.266
115.
Cited by:
Montclair Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Reynard (In re Reynard), 250 B.R. 241, 2000 Bankr. LEXIS 709, Bankr.
L. Rep. (CCH) P78214 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2000)
250 B.R. 241 p.246
5TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
116.
Cited by:
Medical Ctr. Pharm. v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 383, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 15276 (5th Cir. Tex. 2008)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN13
536 F.3d 383 p.396
117.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Texas v. United States, 497 F.3d 491, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 19688 (5th Cir. Tex. 2007) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN14
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
497 F.3d 491 p.521
Cited by:
497 F.3d 491 p.501
118.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Gaddis v. United States, 381 F.3d 444, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 16652, 59 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 457,
64 Fed. R. Serv. (Callaghan) 1238 (5th Cir. Tex. 2004)
381 F.3d 444 p.470
119.
Cited by:
Thompson v. Goetzmann, 337 F.3d 489, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 13594 (5th Cir. Tex. 2003)
337 F.3d 489 p.501
120.
Cited by:
Thompson v. Goetzmann, 315 F.3d 457, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 25969 (5th Cir. Tex. 2002)
315 F.3d 457 p.466
121.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Walton v. Rose Mobile Homes LLC, 298 F.3d 470, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 15283, 2002-2 Trade Cas. (CCH)
P73760 (5th Cir. Miss. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN6, HN7, HN8, HN9, HN13
298 F.3d 470 p.470
Page 17
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
122.
Cited by:
Lopez-Elias v. Reno, 209 F.3d 788, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 8546, 21 Immigr. Cas. Rep. A2-302 (5th Cir.
Tex. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
209 F.3d 788 p.791
5TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
123.
Cited by:
Doe v. Round Rock Indep. Sch. Dist., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98454 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 20, 2007)
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98454
124.
Cited by:
In re the Application of United States, 441 F. Supp. 2d 816, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56332 (S.D. Tex. 2006)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
441 F. Supp. 2d 816 p.825
125.
Cited by:
O'Donnell v. Abbott, 393 F. Supp. 2d 508, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23879 (W.D. Tex. 2005) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
393 F. Supp. 2d 508 p.515
126.
Cited by:
United States v. Valencia, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15264 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2003)
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15264
127.
Followed by:
Supreme Beef Processors, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 113 F. Supp. 2d 1048, 2000 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 7289 (N.D. Tex. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
113 F. Supp. 2d 1048 p.1051
6TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
128.
Cited by:
Detroit Receiving Hosp. & Univ. Health Ctr. v. Sebelius, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16839, 2009 FED App.
269P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Mich. 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16839
129.
Cited by:
Alliance for Cmty. Media v. FCC, 529 F.3d 763, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 13628, 2008 FED App. 230P (6th
Cir.), 45 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 556 (6th Cir. 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
529 F.3d 763 p.776
130.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Sch. Dist. of Pontiac v. Sec'y of the United States Dep't of Educ., 512 F.3d 252, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 198,
2008 FED App. 6P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Mich. 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
Page 18
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
512 F.3d 252 p.280
131.
Followed by:
Wagenknecht v. United States, IRS, 509 F.3d 729, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 28227, 2007 FED App. 469P (6th
Cir.), 100 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6941, 2007-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50836 (6th Cir. Ohio 2007)
509 F.3d 729 p.733
132.
Followed by:
Tilley v. Chertoff, 144 Fed. Appx. 536, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 17538, 2005 FED App. 0705N (6th Cir.),
2005 FED App. 705N (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Ohio 2005)
144 Fed. Appx. 536 p.540
133.
Cited by:
Greenbaum v. United States EPA, 370 F.3d 527, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 10785, 2004 FED App. 166P (6th
Cir.), 58 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1673, 34 Envtl. L. Rep. 20032 (6th Cir. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
370 F.3d 527 p.536
134.
Cited by:
R.R. Ventures, Inc. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 299 F.3d 523, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 15405, 2002 FED App.
259P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
299 F.3d 523 p.551
135.
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
Chapman v. Higbee Co., 256 F.3d 416, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 15068, 2001 FED App. 0207P (6th Cir.)
(6th Cir. Ohio 2001)
256 F.3d 416 p.433
136.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Haskins v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 230 F.3d 231, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 21757, 2000 FED App. 0283P
(6th Cir.), 2000 FED App. 283P (6th Cir.), 79 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P40326, 83 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas.
(BNA) 1329 (6th Cir. Ohio 2000)
230 F.3d 231 p.243
137.
Cited by:
Tompkin v. American Brands, 219 F.3d 566, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 17722, 2000 FED App. 0245P (6th
Cir.), 2000 FED App. 245P (6th Cir.), CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P15857 (6th Cir. Ohio 2000) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN13
219 F.3d 566 p.573
6TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
138.
Cited by:
Broderick v. 119TCbay, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78269 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 1, 2009)
139.
Cited by:
Baker v. Windsor Republic Doors, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61031 (W.D. Tenn. July 10, 2009)
Page 19
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
140.
Followed by:
Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Global Naps Ohio, Inc., 540 F. Supp. 2d 914, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26244 (S.D.
Ohio 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
540 F. Supp. 2d 914 p.919
141.
Cited by:
Guillermety v. Sec'y of Educ. of the United States, 241 F. Supp. 2d 727, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23331 (
E.D. Mich. 2002)
241 F. Supp. 2d 727 p.753
142.
Cited by:
Mich. Pork Producers Ass'n v. Campaign for Family Farms, 174 F. Supp. 2d 637, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
20601 (W.D. Mich. 2001)
174 F. Supp. 2d 637 p.646
143.
Cited by:
Booth v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19263, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P16265 (W.D.
Mich. Nov. 20, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN13
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19263
144.
Cited by:
Crowell v. IRS (In re Crowell), 258 B.R. 885, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2121, 87 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1134,
2001-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50303 (E.D. Tenn. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
258 B.R. 885 p.890
6TH CIRCUIT - U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS
145.
Cited by:
In re Plastech Engineered Prods., 394 B.R. 147, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 2336, 50 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 160,
Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P81395, 60 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 558 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2008) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
394 B.R. 147 p.150
7TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
146.
Cited by:
Univ. of Chicago v. United States, 547 F.3d 773, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 24365, 45 Employee Benefits Cas.
(BNA) 1173 (7th Cir. Ill. 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
547 F.3d 773 p.777
147.
Cited by:
United States v. Singh, 483 F.3d 489, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 8694 (7th Cir. Wis. 2007)
483 F.3d 489 p.494
148.
Cited by:
Square D Co. v. Comm'r, 438 F.3d 739, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 3364, 97 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1058, 2006-1
U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50162 (7th Cir. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
Page 20
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
438 F.3d 739 p.745
149.
Cited by:
United States v. Misc. Firearms, 376 F.3d 709, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 15022 (7th Cir. Ill. 2004)
376 F.3d 709 p.712
150.
Cited by:
Smith v. Zachary, 255 F.3d 446, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 14339 (7th Cir. Ill. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
255 F.3d 446 p.448
151.
Cited by:
Commodity Trend Serv. v. CFTC, 233 F.3d 981, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 30725 (7th Cir. Ill. 2000)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
233 F.3d 981 p.987
152.
Followed by:
General Serv. Emples. Union, Local No. 73 v. NLRB, 230 F.3d 909, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 25698, 165
L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2580, 142 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10828 (7th Cir. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
230 F.3d 909 p.913
153.
Cited by:
Visiting Nurses Ass'n of Southwestern Ind., Inc. v. Shalala, 213 F.3d 352, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 10716, 69
Soc. Sec. Rep. Service 529 (7th Cir. Ind. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
213 F.3d 352 p.355
7TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
154.
Distinguished by:
Richardson v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 578 F. Supp. 2d 1073, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74469, CCH Prod.
Liab. Rep. P18111 (E.D. Wis. 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN13
578 F. Supp. 2d 1073 p.1077
155.
Cited by:
City of Gary v. Shafer, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75504 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 4, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75504
156.
Followed by:
Chi. Lawyers' Comm. for Civ. Rights Under the Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 461 F. Supp. 2d 681, 2006 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 82973 (N.D. Ill. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
461 F. Supp. 2d 681 p.693
157.
Cited by:
Petco Petroleum Corp. v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of Am., 410 F. Supp. 2d 715, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
2847, 166 Oil & Gas Rep. 337 (S.D. Ill. 2006)
410 F. Supp. 2d 715 p.720
Page 21
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
158.
Cited by:
Headen v. Asset Acceptance, Inc., 383 F. Supp. 2d 1097, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23144 (S.D. Ind. 2005)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
383 F. Supp. 2d 1097 p.1102
159.
Cited by:
Karwo v. Citimortgage, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24703 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 21, 2005) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24703
160.
Cited by:
Scherer v. Compass Group United States, 340 F. Supp. 2d 942, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20769, 10 Wage &
Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 128 (W.D. Wis. 2004)
340 F. Supp. 2d 942 p.955
161.
Cited by:
White v. Scibana, 314 F. Supp. 2d 834, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7257 (W.D. Wis. 2004)
314 F. Supp. 2d 834 p.837
162.
Cited by:
Deluca v. Liggett & Myers, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5938, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P16636 (N.D. Ill. Apr.
4, 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN13
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5938
163.
Cited by:
White v. Fin. Credit Corp., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21486 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21486
164.
Cited by:
Insolia v. Philip Morris Inc., 128 F. Supp. 2d 1220, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19410, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep.
P16046 (W.D. Wis. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN13
128 F. Supp. 2d 1220 p.1223
165.
Cited by:
World Wrestling Federation v. Posters Inc., 58 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1783 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 14, 2000)
58 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1783 p.1785
166.
Cited by:
World Wrestling Fedn. Inc. v. Posters, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20357, 58 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1783
(N.D. Ill. Sept. 25, 2000)
2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20357
167.
Cited by:
Page 22
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
Miami Nation of Indians of Indiana, Inc. v. Babbitt, 112 F. Supp. 2d 742, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12788
(N.D. Ind. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN8
112 F. Supp. 2d 742 p.762
168.
Cited by:
Green v. United States Dep't. of Agric., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7387 (S.D. Ind. May 5, 2000) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7387
8TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
169.
Cited by:
Fitzgerald v. Camdenton R-III Sch. Dist., 439 F.3d 773, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 5126 (8th Cir. Mo. 2006)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
439 F.3d 773 p.776
170.
Cited by:
Amador-Palomares v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 864, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 18224 (8th Cir. 2004) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN13
382 F.3d 864 p.868
171.
Cited by:
Shelton v. Consumer Prods. Safety Comm'n, 277 F.3d 998, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 880, 51 Fed. R. Serv. 3d
(Callaghan) 1131, 58 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (CBC) 96 (8th Cir. Mo. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN13
277 F.3d 998 p.1004
172.
Cited by:
Jones v. Vilsack, 272 F.3d 1030, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 25963 (8th Cir. Iowa 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN13
272 F.3d 1030 p.1036
173.
Cited by:
Gorman v. Easley, 257 F.3d 738, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 12827, 11 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1599 (8th
Cir. Mo. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
257 F.3d 738 p.747
8TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
174.
Cited by:
L & S Indus. & Marine, Inc. v. United States, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51608, 103 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2778,
2009-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P70287 (D. Minn. 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51608
175.
Cited by:
Ark. State Hosp. v. Leavitt, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84567 (E.D. Ark. Oct. 8, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84567
Page 23
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
176.
Cited by:
USCOC of Greater Mo., LLC v. City of Ferguson, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39026 (E.D. Mo. May 14, 2008)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39026
177.
Cited by:
Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. City of Dardenne Prairie, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67006 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 19, 2006)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67006
178.
Cited by:
Flagg v. Warden, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17184 (D. Minn. Mar. 3, 2006)
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17184
179.
Cited by:
Ikner v. Walton, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13272 (D. Minn. Feb. 7, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13272
180.
Cited by:
Young v. Caraway, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12512 (D. Minn. Jan. 12, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12512
181.
Cited by:
Hayek v. Caraway, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38026 (D. Minn. Dec. 7, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38026
182.
Cited by:
Witczak v. Pfizer, Inc., 377 F. Supp. 2d 726, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14608 (D. Minn. 2005) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN13
377 F. Supp. 2d 726 p.731
183.
Cited by:
Purchess v. LeBlanc, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8437 (D. Minn. May 2, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8437
184.
Cited by:
Whitfield v. Hollingsworth, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26266 (D. Minn. Dec. 30, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26266
185.
Followed by:
Mash v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28951, 57 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d
(CBC) 264 (E.D. Mo. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN5, HN6, HN7, HN8, HN9, HN13
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28951
Page 24
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
186.
Cited by:
Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co. v. United States, 317 F. Supp. 2d 1117, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5669, 93 A.F.T.R.2d
(RIA) 2779, 2004-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50218 (D. Neb. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
317 F. Supp. 2d 1117 p.1125
187.
Cited by:
Omaha Tribe of Neb. v. Miller, 311 F. Supp. 2d 816, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3214 (S.D. Iowa 2004)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN13
311 F. Supp. 2d 816 p.823
188.
Cited by:
Schultzen v. Woodbury Cent. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 187 F. Supp. 2d 1099, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3010 (N.D.
Iowa 2002)
187 F. Supp. 2d 1099 p.1107
189.
Cited by:
United States v. Bach, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22109 (D. Minn. Oct. 24, 2001)
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22109
190.
Followed by, Cited by:
Filling Station, Inc. v. Vilsack, 174 F. Supp. 2d 942, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7919 (S.D. Iowa 2001)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN13
Followed by:
174 F. Supp. 2d 942 p.950
Cited by:
174 F. Supp. 2d 942 p.945
191.
Cited by:
Wright v. Brooke Group, Ltd., 114 F. Supp. 2d 797, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14559, 43 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d
(CBC) 275, 55 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (CBC) 1051 (N.D. Iowa 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN13
114 F. Supp. 2d 797 p.823
9TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
192.
Cited by:
Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 13197, 48 Comm. Reg. (P & F)
60 (9th Cir. Cal. 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
569 F.3d 946 p.953
193.
Cited by:
Castaneda v. United States, 546 F.3d 682, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 20812 (9th Cir. Cal. 2008) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
546 F.3d 682 p.693
Page 25
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
194.
Cited by:
Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 15934 (9th Cir. Wash. 2008)
534 F.3d 1053 p.1061
195.
Cited by:
Hulteen v. AT&T Corp., 498 F.3d 1001, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 19586, 90 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P42926,
101 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 449 (9th Cir. Cal. 2007)
498 F.3d 1001 p.1013
196.
Followed by:
United States v. Dang, 488 F.3d 1135, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 12111 (9th Cir. Cal. 2007) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
488 F.3d 1135 p.1140
197.
Followed by:
Gallarde v. INS, 486 F.3d 1136, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 11111 (9th Cir. Cal. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
486 F.3d 1136 p.1141
198.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 10865 (9th Cir. 2007) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
486 F.3d 484 p.500
Cited by:
486 F.3d 484 p.490
199.
Cited by:
Golden Northwest Aluminum, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 501 F.3d 1037, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS
10343 (9th Cir. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN14
501 F.3d 1037 p.1045
200.
Followed by, Cited by:
Portland GE Co. v. Bonneville Power, 501 F.3d 1009, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 10342 (9th Cir. 2007)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN14
Followed by:
501 F.3d 1009 p.1026
Cited by:
501 F.3d 1009 p.1025
201.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 691, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 2902 (9th Cir. 2007) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
477 F.3d 691 p.706
Page 26
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
Cited by:
477 F.3d 691 p.697
202.
Cited by:
Valencia-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 1319, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 29867 (9th Cir. 2006)
469 F.3d 1319 p.1326
203.
Cited by:
Freeman v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1031, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 10035 (9th Cir. Or. 2006) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
444 F.3d 1031 p.1039
204.
Cited by:
Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 1013, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 26643 (9th Cir. 2005) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
430 F.3d 1013 p.1024
205.
Cited by:
United States v. W.R. Grace & Co., 429 F.3d 1224, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 26155, 61 Env't Rep. Cas.
(BNA) 1865, 35 Envtl. L. Rep. 20245, 24 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 631 (2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
429 F.3d 1224 p.1239
206.
Cited by:
Doe v. Mann, 415 F.3d 1038, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 14544 (9th Cir. Cal. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
415 F.3d 1038 p.1063
207.
Cited by:
Mujahid v. Daniels, 413 F.3d 991, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 12697 (9th Cir. Or. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
413 F.3d 991 p.997
208.
Cited by:
Am. Bankers Ass'n v. Gould, 412 F.3d 1081, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 11760 (9th Cir. Cal. 2005) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
412 F.3d 1081 p.1086
209.
Cited by:
Handa v. Clark, 401 F.3d 1129, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 4852 (9th Cir. Wash. 2005)
401 F.3d 1129 p.1134
210.
Cited by:
Hernandez-Guadarrama v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 674, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 339 (9th Cir. Wash. 2005)
394 F.3d 674 p.678
Page 27
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
211.
Followed by:
Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 649, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 24596 (9th Cir. 2004) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
390 F.3d 649 p.651
212.
Cited by:
Morales-Izquierdo v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 1299, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 24076 (9th Cir. 2004) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
388 F.3d 1299 p.1303
213.
Followed by:
Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. FERC, 383 F.3d 1006, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 18989 (9th Cir. 2004) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
383 F.3d 1006 p.1016
214.
Cited by:
Oregon v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1118, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 10349 (9th Cir. Or. 2004)
368 F.3d 1118 p.1129
215.
Cited by:
Wilderness Soc'y v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 27248 (9th Cir. Alaska
Mar. 16, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 27248
216.
Cited by:
Padash v. INS, 358 F.3d 1161, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 2788 (9th Cir. 2004)
358 F.3d 1161 p.1170
217.
Cited by:
Wilderness Soc'y v. United States FWS, 353 F.3d 1051, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 26399 (9th Cir. Alaska
2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
353 F.3d 1051 p.1060
218.
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
Brand X Internet Servs. v. FCC, 345 F.3d 1120, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 20306, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Service
8915, 30 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 637 (9th Cir. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
345 F.3d 1120 p.1134
30 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 637 p.637
219.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Vasquez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 343 F.3d 961, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 18871, 2003 D.A.R. 10421 (9th Cir.
2003)
343 F.3d 961 p.965
220.
Followed by, Cited by:
De Jesus Ramirez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 872, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 13823, 2003 Cal. Daily Op.
Page 28
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
Service 6037, 2003 D.A.R. 7602 (9th Cir. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
Followed by:
336 F.3d 872 p.875
Cited by:
336 F.3d 872 p.876
221.
Cited by:
Wilderness Soc'y v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 316 F.3d 913, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 389, 2003
Cal. Daily Op. Service 309, 2003 D.A.R. 385 (9th Cir. Alaska 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
316 F.3d 913 p.923
222.
Cited by:
Microsoft Corp. v. Comm'r, 311 F.3d 1178, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 24363, 2002 D.A.R. 13618, 90
A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7521, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P28541, 2002-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50800, 65
U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1028 (9th Cir. 2002)
311 F.3d 1178 p.1184
223.
Cited by:
Soliman v. Philip Morris, Inc., 311 F.3d 966, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23948, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service
11328, 2002 D.A.R. 13197, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P16461 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN7, HN8, HN13
311 F.3d 966 p.973
224.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
UnionBanCal Corp. v. Comm'r, 305 F.3d 976, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 19178, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service
9618, 2002 D.A.R. 10787, 90 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6379, 2002-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50658 (9th Cir. 2002)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN14
305 F.3d 976 p.987
225.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Navajo Nation v. HHS, 285 F.3d 864, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 6429, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3021, 2003
Cal. Daily Op. Service 3016, 2002 D.A.R. 3682 (9th Cir. Ariz. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
285 F.3d 864 p.879
Cited by:
285 F.3d 864 p.874
226.
Cited by:
Midwater Trawlers Coop. v. DOC, 282 F.3d 710, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 3419, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service
2083, 2002 D.A.R. 2613, 32 Envtl. L. Rep. 20532 (9th Cir. Wash. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
282 F.3d 710 p.720
227.
Cited by:
Bachler v. United States, 281 F.3d 1078, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 3292, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 1926,
2002 D.A.R. 2425, 89 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1267, 2002-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P60430 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
Page 29
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
281 F.3d 1078 p.1080
228.
Cited by:
Ariz. Cattle Growers' Ass'n v. United States Fish & Wildlife, BLM, 273 F.3d 1229, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS
26821, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 10416, 2001 D.A.R. 13005, 53 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1904, 32 Envtl.
L. Rep. 20392 (9th Cir. Ariz. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
273 F.3d 1229 p.1241
229.
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
Forbes v. Napolitano, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 38596, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 6866, 2001 D.A.R. 8439
(9th Cir. Ariz. Aug. 9, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 38596
230.
Followed by:
Moldo v. Matsco, Inc. (In re Cybernetic Servs.), 252 F.3d 1039, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 11750, 2001 Cal.
Daily Op. Service 4600, 2001 D.A.R. 5693, 44 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (CBC) 639, 59 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA)
1097 (9th Cir. 2001)
252 F.3d 1039 p.1050
231.
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
John v. United States, 247 F.3d 1032, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 8501, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3552, 2001
D.A.R. 4417 (9th Cir. Alaska 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
247 F.3d 1032 p.1039
232.
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
Forbes v. Napolitano, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 37020, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2888, 2001 D.A.R. 3575
(9th Cir. Ariz. Apr. 11, 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 37020
233.
Cited by:
Gieg v. Howarth, 244 F.3d 775, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 5262, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2594, 2001
D.A.R. 3211, 143 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P34228, 6 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1618 (9th Cir. Or. 2001)
244 F.3d 775 p.777
234.
Cited by:
Rucker v. Davis, 237 F.3d 1113, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 904, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 675, 2001 D.A.R.
889 (9th Cir. Cal. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
237 F.3d 1113 p.1119
237 F.3d 1113 p.1120
235.
Cited by:
Castro-Cortez v. INS, 239 F.3d 1037, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 855, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 618, 2001
D.A.R. 813 (9th Cir. Wash. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
239 F.3d 1037 p.1053
236.
Cited by:
Page 30
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
Arrington v. Wong, 237 F.3d 1066, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 783, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 579, 2001
D.A.R. 765 (9th Cir. Haw. 2001)
237 F.3d 1066 p.1070
237.
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
Forbes v. Napolitano, 236 F.3d 1009, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 33899, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 13, 2001
D.A.R. 27 (9th Cir. Ariz. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
236 F.3d 1009 p.1013
238.
Followed by:
EEOC v. Dinuba Med. Clinic, 222 F.3d 580, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 21402, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service
7110, 83 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1655 (9th Cir. Cal. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
222 F.3d 580 p.588
239.
Cited by:
Lujan-Armendariz v. INS, 222 F.3d 728, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 18298, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 6369,
2000 D.A.R. 8469 (9th Cir. Cal. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
222 F.3d 728 p.749
240.
Followed in Concurring Opinion at, Cited in Concurring Opinion at, Cited by:
Gorbach v. Reno, 219 F.3d 1087, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 17372, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 6043, 2000
D.A.R. 8001 (9th Cir. Wash. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
Followed in Concurring Opinion at:
219 F.3d 1087 p.1099
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
219 F.3d 1087 p.1099
Cited by:
219 F.3d 1087 p.1093
241.
Cited by:
AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland, 216 F.3d 871, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 14383, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service
4991, 2000 D.A.R. 6675, 20 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 1318 (9th Cir. Or. 2000)
216 F.3d 871 p.876
9TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
242.
Followed by:
Comm. for Immigrant Rights v. County of Sonoma, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66485 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2009)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66485
243.
Cited by:
Crampton v. Thomas, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63150 (D. Or. June 26, 2009)
244.
Cited by:
United States v. Newmont USA Ltd., 504 F. Supp. 2d 1050, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61308, 66 Env't Rep.
Page 31
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
Cas. (BNA) 1139, 37 Envtl. L. Rep. 20234 (E.D. Wash. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
504 F. Supp. 2d 1050 p.1075
245.
Followed by:
Jameson v. Woodford, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38978 (E.D. Cal. May 29, 2007)
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38978
246.
Cited by:
In re Yahoo, Inc., 701 First Ave., Sunnyvale, Cal. 94089, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37601 (D. Ariz. May 21,
2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37601
247.
Cited by:
Gregoire v. Rumsfeld, 463 F. Supp. 2d 1209, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82961 (W.D. Wash. 2006) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
463 F. Supp. 2d 1209 p.1224
248.
Cited by:
Howard v. Wrigley, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68371 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2006)
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68371
249.
Cited by:
Patel v. Wrigley, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68357 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2006)
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68357
250.
Cited by:
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. McKenna, 445 F. Supp. 2d 1252, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60135 (W.D. Wash.
2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
445 F. Supp. 2d 1252 p.1255
251.
Cited by:
Norman v. United States, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52609, 98 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5523, 2006-2 U.S. Tax Cas.
(CCH) P50429 (N.D. Cal. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52609
252.
Cited by:
Kimball v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27138 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 26, 2006)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN8, HN9, HN12, HN13
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27138
253.
Cited by:
William J. Mouren Farming, Inc. v. Great Am. Ins., Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43772 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24,
2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43772
Page 32
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
254.
Cited by:
United States v. Champlin, 388 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39754 (D. Haw. 2005)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
388 F. Supp. 2d 1177 p.1183
255.
Cited by:
Am. Bankers Ass'n v. Lockyer, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12367 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 2004) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12367
256.
Cited by:
Cent. Valley Water Agency v. United States, 327 F. Supp. 2d 1180, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14060 (E.D. Cal.
2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
327 F. Supp. 2d 1180 p.1202
257.
Cited by:
Loree Rodkin Mgmt. Corp. v. Ross-Simons, Inc., 315 F. Supp. 2d 1053, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7534, Copy.
L. Rep. (CCH) P28793, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1732 (C.D. Cal. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
315 F. Supp. 2d 1053 p.1056
258.
Cited by:
United States v. Acorn Eng'g Co., 221 F.R.D. 530, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8282, 58 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA)
1805 (C.D. Cal. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
221 F.R.D. 530 p.534
259.
Cited by:
Modesto Irrigation Dist. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 309 F. Supp. 2d 1156, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4225,
2004-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P74359 (N.D. Cal. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
309 F. Supp. 2d 1156 p.1163
260.
Cited by:
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Bonta, 272 F. Supp. 2d 1085, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12570 (E.D. Cal. 2003)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
272 F. Supp. 2d 1085 p.1105
261.
Cited by:
Mark v. Valley Ins. Co., 275 F. Supp. 2d 1307, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13355 (D. Or. 2003) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
275 F. Supp. 2d 1307 p.1312
262.
Cited by:
Ashby v. Farmers Group, Inc., 261 F. Supp. 2d 1213, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8201 (D. Or. 2003)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
261 F. Supp. 2d 1213 p.1216
263.
Cited by:
Page 33
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
Razilov v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 242 F. Supp. 2d 977, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1539 (D. Or. 2003)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
242 F. Supp. 2d 977 p.980
264.
Distinguished by, Cited by:
Conley v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 286 F. Supp. 2d 1097, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26801 (N.D. Cal. 2002)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN8, HN9, HN13
Distinguished by:
286 F. Supp. 2d 1097 p.1106
Cited by:
286 F. Supp. 2d 1097 p.1105
265.
Cited by:
Ana Int'l, Inc. v. Way, 242 F. Supp. 2d 906, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25483 (D. Or. 2002) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
242 F. Supp. 2d 906 p.914
242 F. Supp. 2d 906 p.915
266.
Cited by:
Oregon. v. Ashcroft, 192 F. Supp. 2d 1077, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6695 (D. Or. 2002) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
192 F. Supp. 2d 1077 p.1088
192 F. Supp. 2d 1077 p.1089
267.
Cited by:
United States v. Siart, 178 F. Supp. 2d 1171, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23241 (D. Or. 2001) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
178 F. Supp. 2d 1171 p.1173
268.
Followed by, Cited by:
Wilderness Watch v. United States Forest Serv., 143 F. Supp. 2d 1186, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20913, 31
Envtl. L. Rep. 20167 (D. Mont. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN14
Followed by:
143 F. Supp. 2d 1186 p.1203
Cited by:
143 F. Supp. 2d 1186 p.1205
269.
Cited by:
Pronsolino v. Marcus, 91 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4267, 50 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1409,
30 Envtl. L. Rep. 20460 (N.D. Cal. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN8
91 F. Supp. 2d 1337 p.1354
9TH CIRCUIT - U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS
270.
Cited by:
In re Polkus, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 3223, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P81424 (Bankr. D. Ariz. Dec. 3, 2008)
Page 34
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2008 Bankr. LEXIS 3223
271.
Cited by:
In re Patrick, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 3419 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2008 Bankr. LEXIS 3419
272.
Followed by:
In re Smith, 389 B.R. 902, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 2254, 50 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 88 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2008)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
389 B.R. 902 p.911
273.
Cited by:
In re First Magnus Fin. Corp., 390 B.R. 667, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 1855 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2008) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
390 B.R. 667 p.676
274.
Cited by:
Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Knupfer (In re PW, LLC), 391 B.R. 25, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 1934, 50 Bankr.
Ct. Dec. (LRP) 70 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
391 B.R. 25 p.39
275.
Cited by:
In re Ewers, 366 B.R. 139, 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 1267 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
366 B.R. 139 p.141
276.
Cited by:
Irwin Mortg. Co. v. Tippett (In re Tippett), 338 B.R. 82, 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 215, 55 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d
(MB) 1233 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
338 B.R. 82 p.87
10TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
277.
Cited in Concurring Opinion at, Cited by:
United States v. Hinckley, 550 F.3d 926, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 24989 (10th Cir. Okla. 2008) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
550 F.3d 926 p.943
Cited by:
550 F.3d 926 p.929
278.
Cited by:
Bo Hae Lee v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 1103, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 11829 (10th Cir. 2008) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
527 F.3d 1103 p.1106
Page 35
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
279.
Cited by:
Wright v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 451 F.3d 1231, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 17066 (10th Cir. Colo. 2006)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
451 F.3d 1231 p.1233
280.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Hain v. Mullin, 436 F.3d 1168, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 1584 (10th Cir. Okla. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
436 F.3d 1168 p.1177
281.
Cited by:
NISH; RCI, Inc. v. Rumsfeld, 348 F.3d 1263, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 23290 (10th Cir. N.M. 2003)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN7
348 F.3d 1263 p.1269
282.
Cited by:
Hain v. Mullin, 324 F.3d 1146, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 5824 (10th Cir. Okla. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
324 F.3d 1146 p.1149
283.
Cited by:
Kulmer v. Surface Transp. Bd., 236 F.3d 1255, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 167, 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 310 (10th
Cir. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
236 F.3d 1255 p.1257
284.
Cited by:
Pharmanex v. Shalala, 221 F.3d 1151, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 17541, 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 4444 (10th Cir.
Utah 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN2, HN6, HN7, HN8, HN9, HN12, HN14
221 F.3d 1151 p.1151
10TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
285.
Cited by:
General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. Steelwise, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3104 (D. Colo. Jan. 5, 2009)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3104
286.
Cited by:
United States v. Water Supply & Storage Co., 546 F. Supp. 2d 1148, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53023 (D.
Colo. 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
546 F. Supp. 2d 1148 p.1152
287.
Cited by:
Dobbs v. Wyeth Pharms., 530 F. Supp. 2d 1275, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5754 (W.D. Okla. 2008)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN4, HN5
530 F. Supp. 2d 1275 p.1281
Page 36
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
288.
Cited by:
Wyandotte Nation v. Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n, 437 F. Supp. 2d 1193, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45905 (D.
Kan. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
437 F. Supp. 2d 1193 p.1203
289.
Cited by:
Nutraceutical Corp. v. Crawford, 364 F. Supp. 2d 1310, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10259 (D. Utah 2005)
364 F. Supp. 2d 1310 p.1317
290.
Cited by:
U.S. Sec. v. FTC, 282 F. Supp. 2d 1285, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16650, 2003-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P74157
(W.D. Okla. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN14
282 F. Supp. 2d 1285 p.1290
11TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
291.
Cited by:
Friends of the Everglades v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 F.3d 1210, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12341, 21
Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1853 (11th Cir. Fla. 2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
570 F.3d 1210 p.1224
292.
Cited by:
Nunnally v. Equifax Info. Servs., 451 F.3d 768, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 14153, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C
643 (11th Cir. Ala. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
451 F.3d 768 p.773
293.
Cited by:
IBT Int'l, Inc. v. Northern (In re Int'l Admin. Servs.), 408 F.3d 689, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 7593, 18 Fla. L.
Weekly Fed. C 491, 44 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (LRP) 178, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P80279 (11th Cir. Fla. 2005)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
408 F.3d 689 p.708
294.
Cited by:
Wilderness Watch v. Mainella, 375 F.3d 1085, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 13254, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C
703, 58 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1937, 34 Envtl. L. Rep. 20038 (11th Cir. Ga. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
375 F.3d 1085 p.1091
295.
Cited by:
Spain v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 363 F.3d 1183, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 5792, 17 Fla. L.
Weekly Fed. C 355 (11th Cir. Ala. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN13
363 F.3d 1183 p.1194
296.
Cited by:
Shotz v. City of Plantation, 344 F.3d 1161, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 18527, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1067,
Page 37
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
11 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) P11-042, 14 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1395 (11th Cir. Fla. 2003)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
344 F.3d 1161 p.1168
297.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Napier v. Preslicka, 331 F.3d 1189, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 10486, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 638 (11th Cir.
Fla. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
331 F.3d 1189 p.1190
298.
Cited by:
Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 3913, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 393 (11th Cir. Ga.
2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
323 F.3d 906 p.914
299.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 25254, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 114 (11th Cir.
Fla. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
314 F.3d 528 p.535
11TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
300.
Cited by:
Lifestar Ambulance Serv. v. United States, 604 F. Supp. 2d 1372, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27325 (M.D. Ga.
2009) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
604 F. Supp. 2d 1372 p.1377
301.
Cited by:
Castellanos v. Zenk, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66463 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 2, 2007)
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66463
302.
Cited by:
Jimerson v. Zenk, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66428 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 1, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66428
303.
Followed by:
Works v. Zenk, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96236 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 26, 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96236
304.
Cited by:
Yvon v. Baja Marine Corp., 495 F. Supp. 2d 1179, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50523, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D
957, 2007 A.M.C. 2395 (N.D. Fla. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
495 F. Supp. 2d 1179 p.1182
305.
Cited by:
Farley v. Zenk, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52827 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 2, 2007)
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52827
Page 38
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
306.
Cited by:
Friends of the Everglades, Inc. v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89450, 64 Env't Rep.
Cas. (BNA) 1914 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 11, 2006)
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89450
307.
Followed by:
Nunnally v. Equifax Info. Servs. LLC, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1119, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11195 (N.D. Ala. 2005)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
366 F. Supp. 2d 1119 p.1132
308.
Cited by:
Braden v. Wyeth, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28734 (N.D. Ala. Apr. 5, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28734
309.
Cited by:
Garcia v. United States, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27704 (S.D. Fla. May 8, 2002)
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27704
310.
Cited by:
Lazaro v. USDA, 186 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22787 (M.D. Fla. 2001) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN7
186 F. Supp. 2d 1203 p.1209
186 F. Supp. 2d 1203 p.1210
186 F. Supp. 2d 1203 p.1212
311.
Cited by:
London v. Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A., 150 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6888 (S.D. Fla.
2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
150 F. Supp. 2d 1314 p.1321
11TH CIRCUIT - U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS
312.
Cited by:
In re Benedetti, 372 B.R. 90, 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 2456, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 484 (Bankr. S.D. Fla.
2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
372 B.R. 90 p.95
313.
Cited by:
Wright v. 21st Mortg. Corp. (In re Wright), 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 1757 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. May 16, 2007)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2007 Bankr. LEXIS 1757
D.C. CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
314.
Cited by:
Page 39
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
In re Core Communs., Inc., 531 F.3d 849, 382 U.S. App. D.C. 120, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 14501, 45
Comm. Reg. (P & F) 630 (2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN14
531 F.3d 849 p.859
382 U.S. App. D.C. 120 p.130
315.
Cited by:
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 493 F.3d 207, 377 U.S. App. D.C. 234, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS
16711, 64 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 2025, 37 Envtl. L. Rep. 20176 (2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
493 F.3d 207 p.223
377 U.S. App. D.C. 234 p.250
316.
Cited by:
Murphy v. IRS, 493 F.3d 170, 377 U.S. App. D.C. 197, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 15816, 100 A.F.T.R.2d
(RIA) 5075, 2007-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50531 (2007)
493 F.3d 170 p.180
377 U.S. App. D.C. 197 p.207
317.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
AFGE v. Gates, 486 F.3d 1316, 376 U.S. App. D.C. 196, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 11599, 181 L.R.R.M.
(BNA) 3153, 154 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10849 (2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
486 F.3d 1316 p.1332
376 U.S. App. D.C. 196 p.212
318.
Cited by:
San Manuel Indian Bingo & Casino v. NLRB, 475 F.3d 1306, 374 U.S. App. D.C. 435, 2007 U.S. App.
LEXIS 2888, 181 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2353, 153 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10799 (2007) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN13
475 F.3d 1306 p.1318
374 U.S. App. D.C. 435 p.447
319.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Am. Council on Educ. v. FCC, 451 F.3d 226, 371 U.S. App. D.C. 307, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 14174, 38
Comm. Reg. (P & F) 859, 25 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 717 (2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN8, HN9, HN12,
HN13
451 F.3d 226 p.236
320.
Cited by:
Friends of the Earth v. EPA, 446 F.3d 140, 371 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 10264, 36 Envtl.
L. Rep. 20077 (2006)
446 F.3d 140 p.147
371 U.S. App. D.C. 1 p.8
321.
Cited by:
Holly Sugar Corp. v. Johanns, 437 F.3d 1210, 369 U.S. App. D.C. 358, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 2894 (2006)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
437 F.3d 1210 p.1213
369 U.S. App. D.C. 358 p.361
Page 40
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
322.
Cited by:
ABA v. FTC, 430 F.3d 457, 368 U.S. App. D.C. 368, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 26524, 2005-2 Trade Cas.
(CCH) P75050 (2005)
430 F.3d 457 p.469
368 U.S. App. D.C. 368 p.380
323.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
Massachusetts v. EPA, 415 F.3d 50, 367 U.S. App. D.C. 282, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 14311, 60 Env't Rep.
Cas. (BNA) 1641, 35 Envtl. L. Rep. 20148, 13 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 899 (2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2,
HN5, HN7, HN8, HN9
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
415 F.3d 50 p.68
367 U.S. App. D.C. 282 p.300
Cited by:
415 F.3d 50 p.56
367 U.S. App. D.C. 282 p.288
324.
Followed by:
Shays v. FEC, 414 F.3d 76, 367 U.S. App. D.C. 185, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 14314 (2005) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
414 F.3d 76 p.105
367 U.S. App. D.C. 185 p.214
325.
Cited by:
Egan v. United States Agency for Int'l Dev., 381 F.3d 1, 363 U.S. App. D.C. 209, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS
18339 (2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
381 F.3d 1 p.4
363 U.S. App. D.C. 209 p.212
326.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 363 U.S. App. D.C. 180, 2004 U.S. App.
LEXIS 18231 (2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
380 F.3d 488 p.510
363 U.S. App. D.C. 180 p.202
Cited by:
380 F.3d 488 p.502
363 U.S. App. D.C. 180 p.194
327.
Cited by:
Consumer Elecs. Ass'n v. FCC, 347 F.3d 291, 358 U.S. App. D.C. 180, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 21972, 30
Comm. Reg. (P & F) 1063 (2003)
347 F.3d 291 p.297
358 U.S. App. D.C. 180 p.186
328.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Page 41
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
Int'l Alliance of Theatrical & Stage Emples., Local 39 v. NLRB, 334 F.3d 27, 357 U.S. App. D.C. 189, 2003
U.S. App. LEXIS 13695, 172 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2993, 148 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10227 (2003) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN8
334 F.3d 27 p.38
357 U.S. App. D.C. 189 p.200
329.
Cited by:
AFL-CIO v. FEC, 333 F.3d 168, 357 U.S. App. D.C. 47, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 12721 (2003) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
333 F.3d 168 p.172
357 U.S. App. D.C. 47 p.51
330.
Cited by:
United States v. Wilson, 290 F.3d 347, 351 U.S. App. D.C. 261, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 8907, 82 Empl.
Prac. Dec. (CCH) P41062 (2002)
290 F.3d 347 p.355
351 U.S. App. D.C. 261 p.269
331.
Cited by:
Am. Bankers Ass'n v. NCUA, 271 F.3d 262, 350 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 24186 (2001)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
271 F.3d 262 p.267
350 U.S. App. D.C. 1 p.6
332.
Cited by:
Ass'n of Civilian Technicians v. Fed. Labor Rels. Auth., 269 F.3d 1119, 348 U.S. App. D.C. 119, 2001 U.S.
App. LEXIS 24188, 168 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2815 (2001)
269 F.3d 1119 p.1122
348 U.S. App. D.C. 119 p.122
333.
Cited by:
Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. v. FCC, 240 F.3d 1126, 345 U.S. App. D.C. 186, 2001 U.S. App.
LEXIS 3102, 24 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 861, 29 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1658 (2001) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
240 F.3d 1126 p.1126
345 U.S. App. D.C. 186 p.195
334.
Cited by:
In re Sealed Case 00-5116, 237 F.3d 657, 345 U.S. App. D.C. 19, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 1050, 49 Fed. R.
Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 134 (2001)
237 F.3d 657 p.667
345 U.S. App. D.C. 19 p.29
335.
Cited by:
AT&T Corp. v. FCC, 220 F.3d 607, 343 U.S. App. D.C. 23, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 18296, 21 Comm. Reg.
(P & F) 66, 2000-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P72984 (2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN14
220 F.3d 607 p.621
343 U.S. App. D.C. 23 p.37
Page 42
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
336.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at, Cited by:
W. Coal Traffic League v. Surface Transp. Bd., 216 F.3d 1168, 342 U.S. App. D.C. 325, 2000 U.S. App.
LEXIS 16154, 2000-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P72962 (2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
216 F.3d 1168 p.1171
Cited by:
342 U.S. App. D.C. 325 p.328
337.
Followed by, Cited by:
NRA of Am., Inc. v. Reno, 216 F.3d 122, 342 U.S. App. D.C. 231, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15906 (2000)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN14
Followed by:
216 F.3d 122 p.137
342 U.S. App. D.C. 231 p.246
Cited by:
216 F.3d 122 p.127
216 F.3d 122 p.132
342 U.S. App. D.C. 231 p.236
338.
Cited by:
Independent Ins. Agents of Am., Inc. v. Hawke, 211 F.3d 638, 341 U.S. App. D.C. 211, 2000 U.S. App.
LEXIS 10389 (2000)
211 F.3d 638 p.643
341 U.S. App. D.C. 211 p.216
D.C. CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURT
339.
Cited by:
Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of La. v. United States, 577 F. Supp. 2d 382, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71361 (D.D.C.
2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
577 F. Supp. 2d 382 p.423
340.
Followed by:
Alston v. District of Columbia, 561 F. Supp. 2d 29, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47329 (D.D.C. 2008)
561 F. Supp. 2d 29 p.41
341.
Cited by:
Anna Jacques Hosp. v. Leavitt, 537 F. Supp. 2d 24, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14149 (D.D.C. 2008)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
537 F. Supp. 2d 24 p.31
342.
Cited by:
United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61412 (D.D.C. 2006)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN13
449 F. Supp. 2d 1 p.103
Page 43
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
343.
Cited by:
Humane Soc'y of the United States v. Kempthorne, 481 F. Supp. 2d 53, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95708
(D.D.C. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
481 F. Supp. 2d 53 p.64
344.
Cited by:
Apotex, Inc. v. FDA, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20894 (D.D.C. Apr. 19, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20894
345.
Cited by:
Law Office of Azita Mojarad v. Aguirre, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17090 (D.D.C. Mar. 27, 2006) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17090
346.
Cited by:
Tax Analysts v. IRS, 416 F. Supp. 2d 119, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7072, 97 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1210 (D.D.C.
2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
416 F. Supp. 2d 119 p.127
347.
Cited by:
Nat'l Women, Infants, & Children Grocers Ass'n v. Food & Nutrition Serv., 416 F. Supp. 2d 92, 2006 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 6696, 26 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 683 (2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
416 F. Supp. 2d 92 p.98
348.
Cited by:
Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. DOJ, 416 F. Supp. 2d 30, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5773 (D.D.C. 2006) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
416 F. Supp. 2d 30 p.37
349.
Cited by:
Apotex Inc. v. FDA, 414 F. Supp. 2d 61, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5196 (D.D.C. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
414 F. Supp. 2d 61 p.67
350.
Followed by:
Guam Indus. Servs. v. Rumsfeld, 405 F. Supp. 2d 16, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33358 (D.D.C. 2005)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
405 F. Supp. 2d 16 p.19
351.
Cited by:
Ass'n of Am. Physicians v. United States FDA, 391 F. Supp. 2d 171, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21311 (D.D.C.
2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN7
391 F. Supp. 2d 171 p.174
Page 44
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
352.
Cited by:
Colo. River Indian Tribes v. Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n, 383 F. Supp. 2d 123, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
17722 (D.D.C. 2005)
383 F. Supp. 2d 123 p.133
353.
Cited by:
Guam Indus. Servs. v. Rumsfeld, 383 F. Supp. 2d 112, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17676 (D.D.C. 2005)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
383 F. Supp. 2d 112 p.118
354.
Cited by:
United States v. Eight Hundred Thousand One Hundred Twenty Seven Dollars & Seventy Cents, 2005 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 41287 (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41287
355.
Cited by:
Allergan, Inc. v. Crawford, 398 F. Supp. 2d 13, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5187 (D.D.C. 2005) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN14
398 F. Supp. 2d 13 p.22
356.
Cited by:
CollaGenex Pharms., Inc. v. Thompson, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5543 (D.D.C. Jan. 19, 2005) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN14
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5543
357.
Followed by:
Friends of the Earth v. EPA, 346 F. Supp. 2d 182, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23806, 60 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA)
1073 (D.D.C. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN7
346 F. Supp. 2d 182 p.192
358.
Cited by:
Shays v. FEC, 337 F. Supp. 2d 28, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18694 (D.D.C. 2004)
337 F. Supp. 2d 28 p.61
359.
Cited by:
Brendsel v. Office of Fed. Hous. Enter. Oversight, 339 F. Supp. 2d 52, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17600, 34
Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1319 (D.D.C. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN14
339 F. Supp. 2d 52 p.65
360.
Cited by:
United States v. Philip Morris Inc., 312 F. Supp. 2d 27, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5743 (D.D.C. 2004)
312 F. Supp. 2d 27 p.33
361.
Distinguished by, Cited by:
United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 310 F. Supp. 2d 68, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4089 (D.D.C. 2004)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7, HN8, HN9
Page 45
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
Distinguished by:
310 F. Supp. 2d 68 p.74
Cited by:
310 F. Supp. 2d 68 p.71
362.
Cited by:
Rooney v. Sec'y of the Army, 293 F. Supp. 2d 111, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20526 (D.D.C. 2003)
293 F. Supp. 2d 111 p.121
363.
Cited by:
Bobreski v. EPA, 284 F. Supp. 2d 67, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17103 (D.D.C. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
284 F. Supp. 2d 67 p.75
364.
Followed by, Cited by:
New York State Bar Ass'n v. FTC, 276 F. Supp. 2d 110, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13939, 2003-2 Trade Cas.
(CCH) P74116 (D.D.C. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN2, HN5, HN6, HN7, HN8, HN9, HN13
Followed by:
276 F. Supp. 2d 110 p.126
Cited by:
276 F. Supp. 2d 110 p.119
365.
Cited by:
Pharm. Research & Mfrs. of Am. v. Thompson, 259 F. Supp. 2d 39, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4796 (D.D.C.
2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
259 F. Supp. 2d 39 p.72
366.
Cited by:
Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am. v. Verizon Internet Servs. (In re Verizon Internet Servs.), 240 F. Supp. 2d 24,
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 681, 65 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1574 (D.D.C. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
240 F. Supp. 2d 24 p.34
367.
Cited by:
Whitaker v. Thompson, 239 F. Supp. 2d 43, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 777 (D.D.C. 2003) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
239 F. Supp. 2d 43 p.49
368.
Cited by:
Ass'n of Am., Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. United States FDA, 226 F. Supp. 2d 204, 2002 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 19689 (D.D.C. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN7
226 F. Supp. 2d 204 p.212
369.
Cited by:
Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. Slater, 167 F. Supp. 2d 265, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14694 (D.D.C. 2001) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
Page 46
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
167 F. Supp. 2d 265 p.283
370.
Cited by:
La. Fed. Land Bank Ass'n v. Farm Credit Admin., 180 F. Supp. 2d 47, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23441
(D.D.C. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
180 F. Supp. 2d 47 p.57
371.
Cited by:
United States v. Philip Morris, Inc., 153 F. Supp. 2d 32, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11074 (D.D.C. 2001)
153 F. Supp. 2d 32 p.35
372.
Followed by:
Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Dep't of Health & Human Serv., 151 F. Supp. 2d 64, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10087, 75
Soc. Sec. Rep. Service 51 (D.D.C. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
151 F. Supp. 2d 64 p.74
373.
Cited by:
Cmty. Care Found. v. Thompson, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25459 (D.D.C. June 18, 2001) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25459
374.
Cited by:
Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 201 F.R.D. 5, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7324 (D.D.C. 2001) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
201 F.R.D. 5 p.9
375.
Among conflicting authorities noted in, Cited by:
Individual Reference Servs. Group, Inc. v. FTC, 145 F. Supp. 2d 6, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5732, 2001-1
Trade Cas. (CCH) P73262 (D.D.C. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
Among conflicting authorities noted in:
145 F. Supp. 2d 6 p.29
Cited by:
145 F. Supp. 2d 6 p.27
376.
Cited by:
Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua & Siuslaw Indians v. Babbitt, 116 F. Supp. 2d 155, 2000 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 14310 (D.D.C. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
116 F. Supp. 2d 155 p.159
377.
Followed by, Harmonized by, Cited by:
United States v. Philip Morris, Inc., 116 F. Supp. 2d 131, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14211, 2000 D.A.R.
10757, RICO Bus. Disp. Guide P9946 (D.D.C. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN7, HN8, HN9,
HN12, HN13
Followed by:
116 F. Supp. 2d 131 p.135
Page 47
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
Harmonized by:
116 F. Supp. 2d 131 p.139
Cited by:
116 F. Supp. 2d 131 p.140
116 F. Supp. 2d 131 p.144
378.
Cited by:
Springfield, Inc. v. Buckles, 116 F. Supp. 2d 85, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13790 (D.D.C. 2000) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
116 F. Supp. 2d 85 p.88
379.
Cited by:
Blacklight Power, Inc. v. Dickinson, 109 F. Supp. 2d 44, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11754, 55 U.S.P.Q.2d
(BNA) 1812 (D.D.C. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
FEDERAL CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
380.
Followed by:
Ningbo Dafa Chem. Fiber Co. v. United States, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 19657 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 2, 2009)
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 19657
381.
Cited by:
Fla. Citrus Mut. v. United States, 550 F.3d 1105, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 25359, 30 Int'l Trade Rep. (BNA)
1808 (Fed. Cir. 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
550 F.3d 1105 p.1108
382.
Cited by:
Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. ITC, 545 F.3d 1340, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 21505, 89 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1057
(Fed. Cir. 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
545 F.3d 1340 p.1355
383.
Cited by:
GHS HMO, Inc. v. United States, 536 F.3d 1293, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17160 (Fed. Cir. 2008) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN14
536 F.3d 1293 p.1299
384.
Cited by:
Agro Dutch Indus., Ltd. v. United States, 508 F.3d 1024, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 26807, 29 Int'l Trade Rep.
(BNA) 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
508 F.3d 1024 p.1030
385.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Garcia v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 437 F.3d 1322, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 3214 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
437 F.3d 1322 p.1350
386.
Cited by:
Page 48
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
Stanley v. DOJ, 423 F.3d 1271, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 19440 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
423 F.3d 1271 p.1274
387.
Cited by:
James v. Von Zemenszky, 301 F.3d 1364, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 18148 (Fed. Cir. 2002) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
301 F.3d 1364 p.1366
388.
Followed by:
Brubaker Amusement Co. v. United States, 304 F.3d 1349, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 14330, 32 Envtl. L. Rep.
20824 (Fed. Cir. 2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
304 F.3d 1349 p.1349
FEDERAL CLAIMS COURT
389.
Cited by:
Abbott Labs. v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 96, 2008 U.S. Claims LEXIS 274, 102 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6332,
2008-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50570 (2008)
84 Fed. Cl. 96 p.105
390.
Cited by:
Comcation, Inc. v. United States, 78 Fed. Cl. 61, 2007 U.S. Claims LEXIS 267, 100 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA)
5644, 2007-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P70268 (2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
78 Fed. Cl. 61 p.68
391.
Cited by:
Grunley Walsh Int'l, LLC v. United States, 78 Fed. Cl. 35, 2007 U.S. Claims LEXIS 262 (2007) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
78 Fed. Cl. 35 p.40
392.
Cited by:
GHS HMO, Inc. v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 339, 2007 U.S. Claims LEXIS 116 (2007) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN14
76 Fed. Cl. 339 p.351
393.
Followed by:
Neb. Pub. Power Dist. v. United States, 73 Fed. Cl. 650, 2006 U.S. Claims LEXIS 323, 64 Env't Rep. Cas.
(BNA) 1074 (2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
73 Fed. Cl. 650 p.671
394.
Cited by:
Theisen Vending Co. v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 194, 2003 U.S. Claims LEXIS 289 (2003) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN7, HN8, HN13
58 Fed. Cl. 194 p.196
395.
Cited by:
Page 49
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
Globe Sav. Bank, F.S.B. v. United States, 55 Fed. Cl. 247, 2003 U.S. Claims LEXIS 21 (2003)
55 Fed. Cl. 247 p.258
396.
Cited by:
Bailey v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 105, 2002 U.S. Claims LEXIS 72 (2002) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
52 Fed. Cl. 105 p.112
397.
Cited by:
Davis v. United States, 50 Fed. Cl. 192, 2001 U.S. Claims LEXIS 157 (2001)
50 Fed. Cl. 192 p.197
398.
Cited by:
Bowen v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 673, 2001 U.S. Claims LEXIS 115 (2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
49 Fed. Cl. 673 p.676
399.
Followed by, Explained by, Cited by:
A-1 Cigarette Vending, Inc. v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 345, 2001 U.S. Claims LEXIS 78 (2001)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN8, HN9, HN13, HN14
Followed by:
49 Fed. Cl. 345 p.355
Explained by:
49 Fed. Cl. 345 p.351
Cited by:
49 Fed. Cl. 345 p.346
49 Fed. Cl. 345 p.349
49 Fed. Cl. 345 p.354
400.
Cited by:
Bd. Mach., Inc. v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 325, 2001 U.S. Claims LEXIS 76 (2001) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN2, HN7, HN8, HN9, HN13
49 Fed. Cl. 325 p.326
49 Fed. Cl. 325 p.327
49 Fed. Cl. 325 p.331
401.
Followed by, Cited by:
B & G Enters. v. United States, 48 Fed. Cl. 866, 2001 U.S. Claims LEXIS 41 (2001) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN7, HN8, HN13
Followed by:
48 Fed. Cl. 866 p.867
Cited by:
48 Fed. Cl. 866 p.866
48 Fed. Cl. 866 p.868
402.
Followed by:
Brubaker Amusement Co. v. United States, 2001 U.S. Claims LEXIS 89 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 12, 2001) LexisNexis
Page 50
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
Headnotes HN7
2001 U.S. Claims LEXIS 89
403.
Cited by:
A 1 Amusement Co. v. United States, 48 Fed. Cl. 63, 2000 U.S. Claims LEXIS 210 (2000) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN2, HN7
48 Fed. Cl. 63 p.64
48 Fed. Cl. 63 p.65
404.
Followed by:
Coutts v. United States, 47 Fed. Cl. 118, 2000 U.S. Claims LEXIS 129 (2000) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN14
47 Fed. Cl. 118 p.126
U.S. COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
405.
Cited by:
P.R. Towing & Barge Co. v. United States, 2009 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 95, SLIP OP. 2009-88 (Ct. Int'l
Trade Aug. 25, 2009)
406.
Cited by:
Corus Staal BV v. United States, 515 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 2007 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 139, Ct. Int'l Trade No.
2007-140, SLIP OP. 2007-140, 29 Int'l Trade Rep. (BNA) 2458 (2007)
515 F. Supp. 2d 1337 p.1346
407.
Cited by:
Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. v. United States, 473 F. Supp. 2d 1349, 2007 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 14, Ct.
Int'l Trade No. 2007-12, SLIP OP. 2007-12, 29 Int'l Trade Rep. (BNA) 1308 (2007)
473 F. Supp. 2d 1349 p.1353
408.
Cited by:
Motorola, Inc. v. United States, 462 F. Supp. 2d 1367, 30 Ct. Int'l Trade 1766, 2006 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS
167, Ct. Int'l Trade No. 2006-165, SLIP OP. 2006-165, 29 Int'l Trade Rep. (BNA) 1013 (2006) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
462 F. Supp. 2d 1367 p.1381
409.
Cited by:
Former Emples. of Tesco Techs., LLC v. United States Sec'y of Labor, 30 Ct. Int'l Trade 1754, 2006 Ct. Intl.
Trade LEXIS 174, Ct. Int'l Trade No. 2006-163, SLIP OP. 2006-163, 28 Int'l Trade Rep. (BNA) 2585
(2006)
2006 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 174 p.7
30 Ct. Int'l Trade 1754 p.1756
410.
Followed by, Cited by:
Tembec, Inc. v. United States, 441 F. Supp. 2d 1302, 30 Ct. Int'l Trade 958, 2006 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 107,
Ct. Int'l Trade No. 2006-109, SLIP OP. 2006-109, 28 Int'l Trade Rep. (BNA) 2119 (2006) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1, HN7
Followed by:
Page 51
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
441 F. Supp. 2d 1302 p.1331
28 Int'l Trade Rep. (BNA) 2119 p.2119
Cited by:
441 F. Supp. 2d 1302 p.1326
411.
Cited by:
Pillsbury Co. v. United States, 368 F. Supp. 2d 1319, 29 Ct. Int'l Trade 444, 2005 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 52,
Ct. Int'l Trade No. 2005-51, SLIP OP. 2005-51, 27 Int'l Trade Rep. (BNA) 1653 (2005) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
368 F. Supp. 2d 1319 p.1325
412.
Cited by:
Defenders of Wildlife v. Hogarth, 177 F. Supp. 2d 1336, 25 Ct. Int'l Trade 1309, 2001 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS
149, Ct. Int'l Trade No. 2001-142, SLIP OP. 2001-142, 54 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1025, 23 Int'l Trade Rep.
(BNA) 2251 (2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN14
177 F. Supp. 2d 1336 p.1343
413.
Cited by:
Timken Co. v. United States, 166 F. Supp. 2d 608, 25 Ct. Int'l Trade 939, 2001 Ct. Int'l Trade 96, 2001 Ct.
Intl. Trade LEXIS 100, Ct. Int'l Trade No. 2001-96, SLIP OP. 2001-96, 23 Int'l Trade Rep. (BNA) 1933
(2001)
166 F. Supp. 2d 608 p.619
U.S. TAX COURT
414.
Followed by:
New Millennium Trading, L.L.C. v. Comm'r, 2008 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 35, 131 T.C. No. 18 (Dec. 22, 2008)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2008 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 35 p.25
415.
Cited by:
Lewis v. Comm'r, 128 T.C. 48, 2007 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 5, 128 T.C. No. 6 (2007) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
128 T.C. 48 p.54
416.
Cited by:
Ewing v. Comm'r, 122 T.C. 32, 2004 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 2, 122 T.C. No. 2 (2004)
122 T.C. 32 p.43
417.
Cited by:
Dorn v. Comm'r, 119 T.C. 356, 2002 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 60, 119 T.C. No. 22 (2002)
119 T.C. 356 p.359
418.
Cited by:
Francisco v. Comm'r, 119 T.C. 317, 2002 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 59, 119 T.C. No. 20 (2002)
119 T.C. 317 p.322
Page 52
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
419.
Cited by:
Metro Leasing & Dev. Corp. v. Comm'r, 119 T.C. 8, 2002 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 39, 119 T.C. No. 2 (2002)
119 T.C. No. 2
420.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Ewing v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 494, 2002 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 30, 118 T.C. No. 31 (2002) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
118 T.C. 494 p.520
421.
Followed by:
Square D Co. v. Comm'r, 118 T.C. 299, 2002 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 15, 118 T.C. No. 15 (2002) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
118 T.C. 299 p.308
422.
Cited by:
Specking v. Comm'r, 117 T.C. 95, 2001 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 40, 117 T.C. No. 9 (2001) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
117 T.C. 95 p.107
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
423.
Followed by:
Brevard Achievement Ctr., Inc., 342 N.L.R.B. 982, 2004 NLRB LEXIS 499, 175 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 1329,
2004-5 NLRB Dec. (CCH) P16762, 2004-05 NLRB Dec. (CCH) P16762, 342 N.L.R.B. No. 101 (2004)
342 N.L.R.B. 982 p.985
2004 NLRB LEXIS 499
424.
Followed by:
Brown Univ. , 342 N.L.R.B. 483, 2004 NLRB LEXIS 385, 175 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 1089, 2004-5 NLRB Dec.
(CCH) P16694, 2004-05 NLRB Dec. (CCH) P16694, 342 N.L.R.B. No. 42 (2004)
342 N.L.R.B. 483 p.488
2004 NLRB LEXIS 385
425.
Cited by:
Temple Sec., Inc., 337 N.L.R.B. 372, 2001 NLRB LEXIS 1048, 169 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 1161, 2001-02 NLRB
Dec. (CCH) P16136, 2001-2 NLRB Dec. (CCH) P16136, 337 N.L.R.B. No. 26 (2001)
2001 NLRB LEXIS 1048
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY DECISIONS
426.
Cited by:
Matter of Guzman-Gomez, 2009 BIA LEXIS 11, 24 I. & N. Dec. 824 (B.I.A. 2009)
24 I. & N. Dec. 824 p.827
2009 BIA LEXIS 11
Page 53
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
427.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
In re Abreu, 2009 BIA LEXIS 12, 24 I. & N. Dec. 795 (B.I.A. 2009)
24 I. & N. Dec. 795 p.818
2009 BIA LEXIS 12
428.
Cited by:
In re Armendarez-Mendez, 2008 BIA LEXIS 31, 24 I. & N. Dec. 646 (B.I.A. 2008)
24 I. & N. Dec. 646 p.651
2008 BIA LEXIS 31
429.
Cited by:
Matter of Velazquez-Herrera, 2008 BIA LEXIS 15, 24 I. & N. Dec. 503 (B.I.A. 2008)
24 I. & N. Dec. 503 p.508
2008 BIA LEXIS 15
430.
Cited by:
In re Singh, 2007 BIA LEXIS 38, 24 I. & N. Dec. 331, I. & N. Dec. Interim No. 3587 (B.I.A. 2007)
I. & N. Dec. Interim No. 3587
431.
Cited by:
In re Moncada, 2007 BIA LEXIS 1, I. & N. Dec. Interim No. 3549 (B.I.A. 2007)
I. & N. Dec. Interim No. 3549
432.
Cited by:
Metwest, Inc., 2006 OSAHRC LEXIS 30 (O.S.H.R.C. June 12, 2006)
2006 OSAHRC LEXIS 30
433.
Cited by:
In re S.C. State Bd. of Dentistry, 138 F.T.C. 229, 2004 FTC LEXIS 289 (2004)
2004 FTC LEXIS 289
434.
Cited by:
In re U.S. Enrichment Corp., 54 N.R.C. 305 (N.R.C. 2001)
54 N.R.C. 305 p.321
435.
Cited by:
Sturdy v. Dep't of the Army, 88 M.S.P.R. 502, 2001 MSPB LEXIS 507 (2001)
88 M.S.P.R. 502 p.507
436.
Cited in Concurring Opinion at, Cited by:
In re Crammond, 2001 BIA LEXIS 3, 23 I. & N. Dec. 9, 23 Immigr. Cas. Rep. B1-5, I. & N. Dec. Interim
No. 3443 (B.I.A. 2001)
Cited in Concurring Opinion at:
23 I. & N. Dec. 9 p.17
I. & N. Dec. Interim No. 3443
Page 54
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
Cited by:
23 I. & N. Dec. 9 p.9
437.
Cited by:
17 F.C.C.R. 24018, 17 F.C.C.R. 24018, F.C.C. Comm'n Order No. 02-303, 27 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 1394
17 F.C.C.R. 24018 p.24028
438.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
15 F.C.C.R. 22983, 15 F.C.C.R. 22983, F.C.C. Comm'n Order No. 00-366
15 F.C.C.R. 22983 p.23126
439.
Cited by:
15 F.C.C.R. 6355, 15 F.C.C.R. 6355, F.C.C. Comm'n Order No. 00-115, 20 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 154
15 F.C.C.R. 6355 p.6375
440.
Cited by:
56 N.R.C. 53, 56 N.R.C. 53
56 N.R.C. 53 p.63
ALABAMA SUPREME COURT
441.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Spain v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 872 So. 2d 101, 2003 Ala. LEXIS 200, 50 U.C.C. Rep. Serv.
2d (CBC) 1091 (Ala. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN13
872 So. 2d 101 p.131
442.
Followed by:
Tillman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 871 So. 2d 28, 2003 Ala. LEXIS 199 (Ala. 2003) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN7, HN8, HN9, HN13
871 So. 2d 28 p.33
ALASKA SUPREME COURT
443.
Cited by:
Godfrey v. State, 175 P.3d 1198, 2007 Alas. LEXIS 160 (Alaska 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN5
175 P.3d 1198 p.1204
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
444.
Distinguished by, Cited by:
Dowhal v. SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare, 32 Cal. 4th 910, 12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 262, 88 P.3d 1,
2004 Cal. LEXIS 3040, 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3259, 2004 D.A.R. 4601 (2004) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN2, HN12
Distinguished by:
32 Cal. 4th 910 p.933
12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 262 p.277
88 P.3d 1 p.14
Page 55
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
Cited by:
88 P.3d 1 p.13
CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL
445.
Cited in questionable precedent at:
Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., 165 Cal. App. 4th 209, 83 Cal. Rptr. 3d 45, 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 1151, 2008-2
Trade Cas. (CCH) P76286 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
165 Cal. App. 4th 209 p.240
83 Cal. Rptr. 3d 45 p.66
446.
Cited by:
State Building & Construction Trades Council of California v. Duncan, 162 Cal. App. 4th 289, 76 Cal. Rptr.
3d 507, 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 606, 155 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P60600, 13 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1408
(Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
162 Cal. App. 4th 289 p.323
76 Cal. Rptr. 3d 507 p.534
447.
Cited in questionable precedent at:
Catalyst Strategic Design, Inc. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 153 Cal. App. 4th 1328, 64 Cal.
Rptr. 3d 55, 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 1278 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2007)
153 Cal. App. 4th 1328 p.1332
64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 55 p.58
448.
Cited by:
O'Neill v. Novartis Consumer Health, Inc., 147 Cal. App. 4th 1388, 55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 551, 2007 Cal. App.
LEXIS 266, 2007 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2098, 2007 D.A.R. 2713 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2007) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN2
147 Cal. App. 4th 1388 p.1396
55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 551 p.558
449.
Distinguished by:
Whiteley v. Philip Morris, Inc., 117 Cal. App. 4th 635, 11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 807, 2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 468,
2004 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2987, 2004 D.A.R. 4261, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P16961 (Cal. App. 1st Dist.
2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
117 Cal. App. 4th 635 p.685
11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 807 p.849
450.
Dissenting opinion at, questionable precedent at, Cited in questionable precedent at:
People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 112 Cal. App. 4th 1377, 6 Cal. Rptr. 3d 58, 2003 Cal.
App. LEXIS 1631, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9476, 2003 D.A.R. 11908 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2003)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN13
Dissenting opinion at, questionable precedent at:
112 Cal. App. 4th 1377 p.1408
6 Cal. Rptr. 3d 58 p.83
Cited in questionable precedent at:
112 Cal. App. 4th 1377 p.1392
Page 56
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
6 Cal. Rptr. 3d 58 p.70
CONNECTICUT SUPREME COURT
451.
Cited by:
Dark-Eyes v. Comm'r of Revenue Servs., 276 Conn. 559, 887 A.2d 848, 2006 Conn. LEXIS 3 (2006)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
276 Conn. 559 p.580
887 A.2d 848 p.862
FLORIDA DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
452.
Cited by:
Liggett Group, Inc. v. Davis, 973 So. 2d 467, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 15925, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D 2427 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2007) LexisNexis Headnotes HN8
973 So. 2d 467 p.470
453.
Distinguished by:
Ferlanti v. Liggett Group, Inc., 929 So. 2d 1172, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 8990, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D 1549
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN8, HN13
929 So. 2d 1172 p.1174
454.
Cited by:
Liggett Group Inc. v. Engle, 853 So. 2d 434, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7500, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D 1219, CCH
Prod. Liab. Rep. P16629 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2003) LexisNexis Headnotes HN13
853 So. 2d 434 p.460
HAWAI'I SUPREME COURT
455.
Distinguished by:
Kienker v. Bauer, 110 Haw. 97, 129 P.3d 1125, 2006 Haw. LEXIS 135 (Haw. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1
110 Haw. 97 p.110
129 P.3d 1125 p.1138
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT
456.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Borowiec v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 209 Ill. 2d 376, 808 N.E.2d 957, 2004 Ill. LEXIS 675, 283 Ill. Dec. 669
(2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
808 N.E.2d 957 p.973
283 Ill. Dec. 669 p.685
457.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Borowiec v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 2004 Ill. LEXIS 378, 2004-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P74353 (Ill. Apr. 1, 2004)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2004 Ill. LEXIS 378
Page 57
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEALS
458.
Followed by:
Badon v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., La. App. 05-1048, 934 So. 2d 927, 2006 La. App. LEXIS 1565
(La.App. 3 Cir. July 12, 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN8, HN9
934 So. 2d 927 p.934
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
459.
Cited by:
Conservation Law Found. v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 2003 ME 62, 823 A.2d 551, 2003 Me. LEXIS 68 (2003)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2003 ME 62
823 A.2d 551 p.559
MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
460.
Cited by:
Haglund v. Philip Morris, Inc., 446 Mass. 741, 847 N.E.2d 315, 2006 Mass. LEXIS 317, 59 U.C.C. Rep.
Serv. 2d (CBC) 584 (2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN13
446 Mass. 741 p.750
847 N.E.2d 315 p.323
MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT
461.
Followed in Concurring Opinion at:
Toll Northville Ltd. v. Twp. of Northville, 480 Mich. 6, 743 N.W.2d 902, 2008 Mich. LEXIS 273 (2008)
480 Mich. 6 p.17
743 N.W.2d 902 p.909
MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS
462.
Distinguished by:
Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 275 S.W.3d 748, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1719 (Mo. Ct. App.
2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
275 S.W.3d 748 p.798
463.
Distinguished by:
Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1144 (Mo. Ct. App. July 31, 2007)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN7
2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1144
464.
Distinguished by:
Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1087 (Mo. Ct. App. July 31, 2007)
2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1087
465.
Distinguished by, Explained by:
Page 58
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
Thompson v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 207 S.W.3d 76, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1230 (Mo. Ct.
App. 2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7, HN8, HN13
Distinguished by:
207 S.W.3d 76 p.126
Explained by:
207 S.W.3d 76 p.93
NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT
466.
Cited by:
Glukowsky v. Equity One, Inc., 180 N.J. 49, 848 A.2d 747, 2004 N.J. LEXIS 553 (2004) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN7, HN14
180 N.J. 49 p.65
848 A.2d 747 p.756
NEW JERSEY SUPERIOR COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION
467.
Cited by:
Glukowsky v. Equity One, Inc., 360 N.J. Super. 1, 821 A.2d 485, 2003 N.J. Super. LEXIS 149 (App.Div.
2003)
360 N.J. Super. 1 p.26
821 A.2d 485 p.501
NEW YORK SUPREME COURT APP. DIV.
468.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Rose v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 53 A.D.3d 80, 855 N.Y.S.2d 119, 2008 N.Y. App. Div.
LEXIS 3073, 2008 NY Slip Op 3147 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2008) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN8,
HN13
53 A.D.3d 80 p.107
855 N.Y.S.2d 119 p.139
2008 NY Slip Op 3147
OTHER NEW YORK DECISIONS
469.
Followed by, Cited by:
Rose v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 10 Misc. 3d 680, 809 N.Y.S.2d 784, 2005 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS
2392, 2005 NY Slip Op 25459, 234 N.Y.L.J. 81 (2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2, HN7, HN8, HN13
Followed by:
10 Misc. 3d 680 p.694
809 N.Y.S.2d 784 p.795
2005 NY Slip Op 25459
Cited by:
10 Misc. 3d 680 p.691
809 N.Y.S.2d 784 p.793
OKLAHOMA
Page 59
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
470.
Cited by:
2001 Okla. AG LEXIS 1, Okla. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 01-1
Okla. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 01-1
2001 Okla. AG LEXIS 1 p.2
OREGON COURT OF APPEALS
471.
Explained by, Cited by:
Schwarz v. Philip Morris Inc. (In re Estate of Schwarz), 206 Ore. App. 20, 135 P.3d 409, 2006 Ore. App.
LEXIS 667 (2006) LexisNexis Headnotes HN7, HN8, HN9, HN13
Explained by:
206 Ore. App. 20 p.61
135 P.3d 409 p.435
Cited by:
135 P.3d 409 p.434
PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT
472.
Cited by:
Powell v. Hous. Auth. , 571 Pa. 552, 812 A.2d 1201, 2002 Pa. LEXIS 2842 (2002) LexisNexis Headnotes
HN1, HN6
571 Pa. 552 p.564
812 A.2d 1201 p.1208
OTHER RHODE ISLAND DECISIONS
473.
Cited by:
Andreozzi v. Marilyn C. Brownell, 2004 R.I. Super. LEXIS 127 (2004)
474.
Cited by:
Andreozzi v. Brownell, 2004 R.I. Super. LEXIS 124 (2004)
TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT
475.
Cited by:
Brown v. Erachem Comilog, Inc., 2009 Tenn. LEXIS 509 (Tenn. Aug. 18, 2009)
2009 Tenn. LEXIS 509
TEXAS SUPREME COURT
476.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Combs, 258 S.W.3d 627, 2008 Tex. LEXIS 457, 51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 880 (Tex.
2008)
258 S.W.3d 627 p.645
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS
477.
Cited by:
Fagan v. Chaisson, 179 S.W.3d 35, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 5396 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2005) LexisNexis
Page 60
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
Headnotes HN1
179 S.W.3d 35 p.41
478.
Cited by:
Chair King, Inc. v. GTE Mobilnet of Houston, Inc., 135 S.W.3d 365, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 4152 (Tex.
App. Houston 14th Dist. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
135 S.W.3d 365 p.373
479.
Cited by:
Celadon Trucking Servs. v. Titan Textile Co., 130 S.W.3d 301, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 1409 (Tex. App.
Houston 14th Dist. 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
130 S.W.3d 301 p.305
480.
Cited by:
Chair King, Inc. v. GTE Mobilnet of Houston, Inc., 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 780 (Tex. App. Houston 14th
Dist. Jan. 29, 2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 780
481.
Cited by:
Omnibus Int'l, Inc. v. AT&T, Inc., 111 S.W.3d 818, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 6544 (Tex. App. Dallas 2003)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
111 S.W.3d 818 p.821
482.
Cited by:
Omnibus Int'l v. AT&T, Inc., 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 8234 (Tex. App. Dallas Nov. 21, 2002) LexisNexis
Headnotes HN1
2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 8234
OTHER VIRGINIA DECISIONS
483.
Cited by:
Dogwood Realty, Inc. v. Virginia Dep't of Soc. Servs., 2000 Va. Cir. LEXIS 164, 53 Va. Cir. 236 (2000)
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
53 Va. Cir. 236 p.243
2000 Va. Cir. LEXIS 164
WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT
484.
Cited in Dissenting Opinion at:
Sebastian v. Department of Labor & Indus., 142 Wn.2d 280, 12 P.3d 594, 2000 Wash. LEXIS 768 (2000)
142 Wn.2d 280 p.293
12 P.3d 594 p.600
WASHINGTON COURT OF APPEALS
485.
Cited by:
Skamania County v. Woodall, 104 Wn. App. 525, 16 P.3d 701, 2001 Wash. App. LEXIS 113 (2001)
Page 61
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
104 Wn. App. 525 p.533
16 P.3d 701 p.705
OTHER VIRGIN ISLANDS DECISIONS
486.
Cited by:
Virgin Islands v. Johnson, 45 V.I. 365, 2004 V.I. LEXIS 4 (2004) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
45 V.I. 365 p.370
OTHER CITATIONS
487.
Cited by:
COLUMN: Recent Developments in Health Law, 36 J.L. Med. & Ethics 594 (2008)
488.
Cited by:
NOTE: Parsing the Standard of Review Puzzle: How Much Deference Should Federal District Courts
Afford Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Decisions?, 13 Fed. Cir. B.J. 489 (2003)
489.
Cited by:
PART V: Public Health Law: Preparedness, Practice, and Teaching: Public Health Literacy for Lawyers,
31 J.L. Med. & Ethics 701 (2003)
490.
Cited by:
SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE: Challenges in the Federal Regulation of Pain Management Technologies, 31 J.L.
Med. & Ethics 55 (2003)
491.
Cited by:
ARTICLE: One Private Practitioner's Speculation on the Impact of Mead in Trade Law Cases, 12 Fed. Cir.
B.J. 213 (2002)
492.
Cited by:
II. HEALTH, LAW, AND EVERYDAY LIFE: The Impact of Law on Coronary Heart Disease: Some
Preliminary Observations on the Relationship of Law to "Normalized" Conditions, 30 J.L. Med. & Ethics
608 (2002)
493.
Cited by:
III. SALIENT ISSUES IN PUBLIC HEALTH LAW: Regulating Tobacco: The Need for a Public Health
Judicial Decision-Making Canon, 30 J.L. Med. & Ethics 281 (2002)
494.
Cited by:
II. FIELDS OF LAW: Administrative Law and the Public's Health, 30 J.L. Med. & Ethics 212 (2002)
495.
Cited by:
EX POSE: Green Bag Digests, 3 Green Bag 2d 341 (2000)
ANNOTATED STATUTES ( 5 Citing Statutes )
496.
21 C.F.R. sec. 801.1
497.
15 U.S.C. sec. 1331
498.
21 U.S.C. sec. 301
Page 62
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
499.
21 U.S.C. sec. 321
500.
21 U.S.C. sec. 360j
LAW REVIEWS AND PERIODICALS ( 595 Citing References )
501.
ARTICLE: CONTROL OF AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES INTRODUCTIONS VIA BALLAST WATER IN
THE UNITED STATES: IS THE EXEMPTION OF BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES FROM CLEAN
WATER ACT REGULATION A VALID EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY?, 6 Ocean & Coastal L.J. 33 (2001)
502.
ARTICLE: FDA's Proposed Rules on Patent Listing Requirements for New Drug and 30-Month Stays on
ANDA Approval (Proposed Oct. 24, 2002), 12 Ann. Health L. 325 (2003)
503.
ARTICLE: Off-Label or Out of Bounds? Prescriber and Marketer Liability for Unapproved Uses of
FDA-Approved Drugs, 12 Ann. Health L. 295 (2003)
504.
ARTICLE: WHAT ROUGH BEAST. . . SLOUCHES TOWARDS BETHLEHEM: n1 BUSINESS
ROUNDTABLE v. SEC AND THE SEC'S DELEGATED RULEMAKING AUTHORITY, 25 Ann. Rev.
Banking & Fin. L. 497 (2006)
505.
POINT-COUNTERPOINT: FEDERAL PREEMPTION: The OCC's Preemption Rules Exceed the Agency's
Authority and Present A Serious Threat to the Dual Banking System and Consumer Protection, 23 Ann.
Rev. Banking & Fin. L. 225 (2004)
506.
SYMPOSIUM: ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS AND POLICY: BRINGING PHILOSOPHY DOWN TO
EARTH: A JOINT PUBLICATION BETWEEN ENVIRONS AND THE U.C. DAVIS LAW REVIEW
(ARTICLES PUBLISHED CONCURRENTLY IN ENVIRONS, VOL. 27, # 1 AND THE U.C. DAVIS LAW
REVIEW, VOL. 37, # 1): PANEL: SHAPING THE FUTURE: WHAT OUR DECISIONS TODAY MEAN
FOR TOMORROW: Federalism, Preemption, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 27 Environs Envtl. L. &
Pol'y J. 281 (2003)
507.
85 Taxes 9
85 Taxes 9 p.57
508.
ARTICLE: CHEVRON AND HEARING RIGHTS: AN UNINTENDED COMBINATION, 61 Ad. L. Rev. 249
(2009)
509.
COMMENT: THANK YOU FOR REGULATING: WHY PHILIP MORRIS'S EMBRACE OF FDA
REGULATION HELPS THE COMPANY BUT HARMS THE AGENCY, 61 Ad. L. Rev. 197 (2009)
510.
ARTICLE: REINCARNATING THE "MAJOR QUESTIONS" EXCEPTION TO CHEVRON DEFERENCE
AS A DOCTRINE OF NONINTERFERENCE (OR WHY MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA GOT IT WRONG), 60
Ad. L. Rev. 593 (2008)
511.
ARTICLE: REFINING CHEVRON--RESTORING JUDICIAL REVIEW TO PROTECT RELIGIOUS
REFUGEES, 60 Ad. L. Rev. 513 (2008)
512.
RECENT DEVELOPMENT: AGENCY-CENTERED OR COURT-CENTERED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW? A
DIALOGUE WITH RICHARD PIERCE ON AGENCY STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, 59 Ad. L. Rev.
889 (2007)
513.
ARTICLE: THE EMERGING OUTLINES OF A REVISED CHEVRON DOCTRINE: CONGRESSIONAL
Page 63
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
INTENT, JUDICIAL JUDGMENT, AND ADMINISTRATIVE AUTONOMY, 59 Ad. L. Rev. 783 (2007)
514.
ARTICLE: CHEVRON'S DEMISE: A SURVEY OF CHEVRON FROM INFANCY TO SENESCENCE, 59
Ad. L. Rev. 725 (2007)
515.
ARTICLE: STATUTORY INTERPRETATION OR PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: HOW CHEVRON
MISCONCEIVES THE FUNCTION OF AGENCIES AND WHY IT MATTERS, 59 Ad. L. Rev. 673 (2007)
516.
ARTICLE: PUTTING THE IMMIGRATION RULE OF LENITY IN ITS PROPER PLACE: A TOOL OF
LAST RESORT AFTER CHEVRON, 59 Ad. L. Rev. 479 (2007)
517.
ARTICLE: ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES ARE JUST LIKE LEGISLATURES AND COURTS--EXCEPT
WHEN THEY'RE NOT, 59 Ad. L. Rev. 79 (2007)
518.
ARTICLE: HUNTERS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COMMON LAW, 58 Ad. L. Rev. 917 (2006)
519.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DISCUSSION FORUM: JURISDICTION TO DECIDE AN AGENCY'S OWN
JURISDICTION: THE FORGOTTEN TALE OF THE HYNSON QUARTET, 58 Ad. L. Rev. 829 (2006)
520.
NOTES AND COMMENTS: LOCKHART V. UNITED STATES: DECAPITATING THE NEW DEAL &
IGNORING THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY AND DEBT COLLECTION
IMPROVEMENT ACTS, 58 Ad. L. Rev. 455 (2006)
521.
ARTICLE: DEFINING DEFERENCE DOWN: INDEPENDENT AGENCIES AND CHEVRON
DEFERENCE, 58 Ad. L. Rev. 429 (2006)
522.
ARTICLE: MAKING CONSISTENCY CONSISTENT, 57 Ad. L. Rev. 995 (2005)
523.
ARTICLE: NORMS, PRACTICES, AND THE PARADOX OF DEFERENCE: A PRELIMINARY INQUIRY
INTO AGENCY STATUTORY INTERPRETATION *, 57 Ad. L. Rev. 501 (2005)
524.
ARTICLE: MIXED SIGNALS: RECONSIDERING THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF JUDICIAL
DEFERENCE TO ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES, 56 Ad. L. Rev. 657 (2004)
525.
ARTICLE: AN APA-DEFAULT PRESUMPTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS: SOME
THOUGHTS ON "OSSIFYING" THE ADJUDICATION PROCESS, 55 Ad. L. Rev. 787 (2003)
526.
ARTICLE: MEAD AND THE PROSPECTIVE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION, 54 Ad. L. Rev. 771 (2002)
527.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DISCUSSION FORUM: SPURIOUS INTERPRETATION REDUX: MEAD AND
THE SHRINKING DOMAIN OF STATUTORY AMBIGUITY, 54 Ad. L. Rev. 673 (2002)
528.
ARTICLE: PUBLICATION RULES IN THE RULEMAKING SPECTRUM: ASSURING PROPER RESPECT
FOR AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT, 53 Ad. L. Rev. 803 (2001)
529.
ARTICLE: RENDERING TO CAESAR: A RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR O'REILLY, 53 Ad. L. Rev. 343
(2001)
530.
ARTICLE: JUDGES, IDEOLOGY, AND POLICY IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE: LESSONS FROM A
DECADE OF HARD LOOK REMANDS OF EPA RULES, 53 Ad. L. Rev. 45 (2001)
531.
NOTE: LORILLARD TOBACCO CO. V. REILLY: n1 THE SUPREME COURT SENDS FIRST
AMENDMENT GUARANTEES UP IN SMOKE BY APPLYING THE COMMERCIAL SPEECH DOCTRINE
TO CONTENT-BASED REGULATIONS, 36 Akron L. Rev. 133 (2002)
36 Akron L. Rev. 133 p.133
Page 64
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
532.
Article: The Common Law of Federal Question Jurisdiction, 60 Ala. L. Rev. 895 (2009)
60 Ala. L. Rev. 895 p.895
533.
ARTICLE: Judicial Faithfulness or Wandering Indulgence? Original Intentions and the History of Marbury
v. Madison, 57 Ala. L. Rev. 1041 (2006)
57 Ala. L. Rev. 1041 p.1041
534.
ALABEMA SECTION: Survey of 2002-2003 Developments in Alabama Caselaw *, 55 Ala. L. Rev. 445
(2004)
55 Ala. L. Rev. 445 p.445
535.
COMMENTARY: Statutory Disclosure of Tobacco Ingredients: Secrets up in Smoke?, 54 Ala. L. Rev. 1413
(2003)
54 Ala. L. Rev. 1413 p.1413
536.
ARTICLE: Constitutional Statutory Synthesis, 54 Ala. L. Rev. 1281 (2003)
54 Ala. L. Rev. 1281 p.1281
537.
COMMENTARY: Reaping the Tobacco Settlement Windfall: The Viability of Future Settlement Payment
Securitization as an Option for State Legislatures, 52 Ala. L. Rev. 705 (2001)
52 Ala. L. Rev. 705 p.705
538.
SYMPOSIUM: THE AMERICAN WITH DISABILITES ACT: A TEN-YEAR RETROSPECTIVE: The
Americans with Disability Act and Employment: A Non-Retrospective., 52 Ala. L. Rev. 375 (2000)
52 Ala. L. Rev. 375 p.375
539.
ARTICLE: THE THREAT OF GLOBAL WARMING AND THE ROLES OF THE EPA: EPA AS AN
INDEPENDENT AGENCY AND AS ADVOCATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE PUBLIC?, 11 Alb.
L. Envtl. Outlook 365 (2007)
540.
ARTICLE: Toward a Federal Common Law of Bankruptcy: Judicial Lawmaking in a Statutory Regime, 80
Am. Bank. L.J. 1 (2006)
541.
ARTICLE: UNITED FOODS AND WILEMAN BROS.: PROTECTION AGAINST COMPELLED
COMMERCIAL SPEECH-NOW YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON'T, 39 Am. Bus. L.J. 467 (2002)
542.
ARTICLE: THE INCREMENTAL STRENGTHENING OF FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION FOR
COMMERCIAL SPEECH: LESSONS FROM GREATER NEW ORLEANS BROADCASTING, 37 Am. Bus.
L.J. 587 (2000)
543.
ARTICLE: FEDERAL FOOD AND DRUG ACT VIOLATIONS, 41 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 647 (2004)
544.
ARTICLE: Federal Food and Drug Act Violations, 40 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 613 (2003)
545.
ARTICLE: Federal Food and Drug Act Violations, 39 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 609 (2002)
Page 65
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
546.
ARTICLE: Federal Food and Drug Act Violations, 38 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 819 (2001)
547.
ARTICLE: FEDERAL FOOD AND DRUG ACT VIOLATIONS, 37 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 529 (2000)
548.
INTERNATIONAL DECISION: Availability of U.S. courts to detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base -reach of habeus corpus -- executive power in war on terror, 98 Am. J. Int'l L. 788 (2004)
98 Am. J. Int'l L. 788 p.788
549.
ARTICLE: Demanding Individually Safe Drugs Today: Overcoming the Cross-labeling Legal Hurdle to
Pharmacogenomics, 34 Am. J. L. and Med. 7 (2008)
550.
NOTE AND COMMENT: Medigap: Should Private Insurers Pay Public Rates and Who should Make the
Decision?, 30 Am. J. L. and Med. 69 (2004)
551.
RECENT DEVELOPMENT:, 26 Am. J. L. and Med. 325 (2000)
552.
RECENT DEVELOPMENT IN HEALTH LAW: Select Recent Court Decisions, 26 Am. J. L. and Med. 311
(2000)
553.
THE CHANGING FACE OF LAW AND MEDICINE IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM: ARTICLE Tobacco
Litigation: Smoke, Mirrors and Public Policy, 26 Am. J. L. and Med. 187 (2000)
554.
COMMENT: PEDIATRIC TESTING OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS: THE FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION'S CARROT AND STICK FOR THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY, 49 Am. U.L.
Rev. 739 (2000)
49 Am. U.L. Rev. 739 p.739
555.
ARTICLE: Accommodating the Administrative State: The Interrelationship Between the Chevron and
Nondelegation Doctrines, 38 Ariz. St. L.J. 921 (2006)
556.
ARTICLE: A Modest Proposal To Rename the FDA: Apologists for Carcinogens, Teratogens, and
Adulterated Drugs, 36 Ariz. St. L.J. 1161 (2004)
557.
ARTICLE: Legal Context: Reading Statutes in Light of Prevailing Legal Precedent, 34 Ariz. St. L.J. 815
(2002)
558.
ARTICLE: The Devil, the Details, and the Dawn of the 21st Century Administrative State: Beyond the New
Deal, 32 Ariz. St. L.J. 941 (2000)
559.
NOTE FROM THE FIELD: Cold Fusion Confusion The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's
Incredible Interpretation of Religion in LaViolette v. Daley, 2002 Army Law. 74 (2002)
560.
ARTICLE: ADVANCING THE REBIRTH OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMON LAW, 34 B. C. Envtl. Aff. L.
Rev 1 (2007)
561.
NOTE: Environmental Justice and Title VI in the Wake of Alexander v. Sandoval: Disparate-Impact
Regulations Still Valid under Chevron, 31 B. C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev 61 (2004)
562.
NOTE: Human-Nonhuman Chimeras: A Regulatory Proposal on the Blurring of Species Lines, 45 B.C. L.
Rev. 619 (2004)
45 B.C. L. Rev. 619 p.619
Page 66
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
563.
ARTICLE: CORPORATE ADVERTISING'S DEMOCRACY, 12 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J. 389 (2003)
564.
SYMPOSIUM THE MOST DISPARAGED BRANCH: THE ROLE OF CONGRESS IN THE TWENTY-FIRST
CENTURY: PANEL VI: TOWARD A MORE RESPONSIBLE CONGRESS?: THE TURN TOWARD
CONGRESS IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 89 B.U.L. Rev. 727 (2009)
89 B.U.L. Rev. 727 p.727
565.
ARTICLE: CHEVRON'S CONSENSUS, 88 B.U.L. Rev. 1271 (2008)
88 B.U.L. Rev. 1271 p.1271
566.
ARTICLE: The Law of Presidential Transitions and the 2000 Election, 2001 BYU L. Rev. 1573 (2001)
2001 BYU L. Rev. 1573 p.1573
567.
ARTICLE: Tax Expenditures, Social Justice, and Civil Rights: Expanding the Scope of Civil Rights Laws to
Apply to Tax-Exempt Charities, 2001 BYU L. Rev. 167 (2001)
2001 BYU L. Rev. 167 p.167
568.
NOTES & COMMENTS: The Weak Nondelegation Doctrine and American Trucking Associations v. EPA,
2000 BYU L. Rev. 627 (2000)
569.
Article: A Lenity Exception to Chevron Deference, 58 Baylor L. Rev. 1 (2006)
58 Baylor L. Rev. 1 p.1
570.
Symposium: Second National People of Color Legal Scholarship Conference: You Are Not Quite as Old as
You Think: Making the Case for Reverse Age Discrimination Under the ADEA, 26 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab.
L. 363 (2005)
571.
IV. TELECOMMUNICATIONS: A. Note: Stretch Before Exercise: The FCC's Overbroad Interpretation of
CALEA and the D.C. Circuit's Deferential Review, 22 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 647 (2007)
572.
Article: The Ambulance, the Squad Car, & the Internet, 21 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 873 (2006)
573.
NOTE: FEDERAL TOBACCO REGULATION: THE FAILURE OF FDA JURISDICTION OVER
TOBACCO AND THE POSSIBILITY OF COMPROMISE THROUGH A CONGRESSIONAL
REGULATORY SCHEME, 40 Brandeis L.J. 121 (2001)
574.
ARTICLE: Can Federal Agencies Authorize Private Suits Under Section 1983?: A THEORETICAL
APPROACH *, 69 Brook. L. Rev. 163 (2003)
69 Brook. L. Rev. 163 p.163
575.
ARTICLE: THE INTERPRETATION OF MULTILINGUAL STATUTES BY THE EUROPEAN COURT OF
JUSTICE, 34 Brooklyn J. Int'l L. 277 (2009)
576.
ARTICLE: REMNANTS OF CUSTOMS LITIGATION: JURISDICTION AND STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION, 26 Brooklyn J. Int'l L. 861 (2001)
577.
SYMPOSIUM ON HEALTH CARE: Medicare Should, but Cannot, Consider Cost: Legal Impediments to a
Sound Policy, 53 Buff. L. Rev. 577 (2005)
53 Buff. L. Rev. 577 p.577
Page 67
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
578.
COMMENT: Sex Stereotyping Per Se: Transgender Employees and Title VII, 95 Cal. L. Rev. 561 (2007)
95 Cal. L. Rev. 561 p.561
579.
RESPONSE ESSAY: The Judicial Power and Treaty Delegation, 90 Cal. L. Rev. 1263 (2002)
90 Cal. L. Rev. 1263 p.1263
580.
NOTE: WEIGHT-LOSS ADVERTISING TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE: ARE MANUFACTURERS OR THE
MEDIA TO BLAME?, 22 Cardozo Arts & Ent LJ 933 (2005)
581.
ARTICLE: THE ROLE OF JUDGES IN A GOVERNMENT OF, BY, AND FOR THE PEOPLE: NOTES
FOR THE FIFTY-EIGHTH CARDOZO LECTURE, 30 Cardozo L. Rev. 1 (2008)
582.
SYMPOSIUM: THE DOMESTIC COMMANDER IN CHIEF: ENEMY COMBATANTS AND THE
JURISDICTIONAL FACT DOCTRINE, 29 Cardozo L. Rev. 1001 (2008)
583.
NOTE: FURTHERING CONSUMER SAFETY OF MEDICAL DEVICES: THE NECESSITY OF A
DEVICE-SPECIFIC STATE LAW AS REQUIRED FOR EXPRESS PREEMPTION UNDER THE MDA, 27
Cardozo L. Rev. 387 (2005)
584.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: THE HIGH COSTS OF COSTS: FEES AS BARRIERS TO ACCESS
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADIAN FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REGIMES, 7 Cardozo
Pub. L. Pol'y & Ethics J. 599 (2009)
7 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol'y & Ethics J. 599 p.599
585.
ARTICLE: LET THEM EAT SMOKE: THE CASE FOR EXEMPTING THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY FROM
ANTITRUST, 6 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol'y & Ethics J. 345 (2008)
6 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol'y & Ethics J. 345 p.345
586.
NOTE: CARBON DIOXIDE AND THE CLEAN AIR ACT, 4 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol'y & Ethics J. 779 (2006)
4 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol'y & Ethics J. 779 p.779
587.
NOTE: VICTIMIZING THE VICTIM: EVICTING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS FROM PUBLIC
HOUSING BASED ON THE ZERO-TOLERANCE POLICY, 9 Cardozo Women's L.J. 97 (2002)
588.
NOTE: THE LIMITS OF POLICE POWER: STATE ACTION TO PREVENT YOUTH CIGARETTE USE
AFTER LORILLARD V. REILLY, 53 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 203 (2002)
53 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 203 p.203
589.
ARTICLE: ARE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES CONSTITUTIONAL?: RADICAL TEXTUALISM,
SEPARATION OF POWERS, AND THE ENACTMENT PROCESS, 52 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 489 (2001)
52 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 489 p.489
590.
ARTICLE: BRINGING DEFERENCE BACK (BUT FOR HOW LONG?): JUSTICE ALITO, CHEVRON,
AUER, AND CHENERY IN THE SUPREME COURT'S 2006 TERM, 57 Cath. U.L. Rev. 1 (2007)
57 Cath. U.L. Rev. 1 p.1
Page 68
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
591.
ARTICLE: Reassessing the Scope of Conduct Prohibited by Section 10(b) and the Elements of Rule 10b-5:
Reflections on Securities Fraud and Secondary Actors, 53 Cath. U.L. Rev. 667 (2004)
53 Cath. U.L. Rev. 667 p.667
592.
NOTE: Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly: Are we Protecting the Integrity of the First Amendment and the
Commercial Free Speech Doctrine at the Risk of Harming our Youth?, 51 Cath. U.L. Rev. 987 (2002)
51 Cath. U.L. Rev. 987 p.987
593.
ARTICLE: The Strange Career of Commercial Speech, 6 Chap. L. Rev. 161 (2003)
594.
ARTICLE: The Newman Application and the Uspto's Unnecessary Response: Patentability of Humans and
Human Embryos, 5 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 90 (2006)
595.
SURVEY: DR. SPITZLOVE OR: HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE
"BALKANIZATION", 2006 COLUM. BUS. L. REV. 311 (2006)
596.
ARTICLE: Dams, Duties, and Discretion: Bureau of Reclamation Water Project Operations and the
Endangered Species Act, 33 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 1 (2008)
597.
ARTICLE: Global Warming as a Public Nuisance, 30 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 293 (2005)
598.
ARTICLE: The Case of the Disappearing Statute: A Legal and Policy Critique of the Use of Section 1115
Waivers to Restructure the Medicaid Program, 37 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 91 (2003)
599.
ARTICLE: PROCEDURES AS POLITICS IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 107 Colum. L. Rev. 1749 (2007)
107 Colum. L. Rev. 1749 p.1749
600.
ARTICLE: IN SEARCH OF THE MODERN SKIDMORE STANDARD, 107 Colum. L. Rev. 1235 (2007)
107 Colum. L. Rev. 1235 p.1235
601.
NOTE: COURTS STILL "SAY WHAT THE LAW IS": EXPLAINING THE FUNCTIONS OF THE
JUDICIARY AND AGENCIES AFTER BRAND X, 106 Colum. L. Rev. 2129 (2006)
106 Colum. L. Rev. 2129 p.2129
602.
ARTICLE: THE PRESIDENT'S STATUTORY POWERS TO ADMINISTER THE LAWS, 106 Colum. L. Rev.
263 (2006)
106 Colum. L. Rev. 263 p.263
603.
EXCHANGE: THE RISE AND FALL OF TEXTUALISM, 106 Colum. L. Rev. 1 (2006)
106 Colum. L. Rev. 1 p.1
604.
NOTE: THE BOUNDARIES OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM: SHOULD THE BIPARTISAN
CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT REGULATE REDISTRICTING?, 105 Colum. L. Rev. 1597 (2005)
605.
ARTICLE: RETHINKING ARTICLE I, SECTION 1: FROM NONDELEGATION TO EXCLUSIVE
DELEGATION, 104 Colum. L. Rev. 2097 (2004)
104 Colum. L. Rev. 2097 p.2097
Page 69
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
606.
NOTE: CARBON DIOXIDE: A POLLUTANT IN THE AIR, BUT IS THE EPA CORRECT THAT IT IS NOT
AN "AIR POLLUTANT"?, 104 Colum. L. Rev. 1996 (2004)
104 Colum. L. Rev. 1996 p.1996
607.
ARTICLE: ENGAGING FACTS AND POLICY: A MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH TO PATENT
SYSTEM REFORM, 103 Colum. L. Rev. 1035 (2003)
103 Colum. L. Rev. 1035 p.1035
608.
ARTICLE: PREFERENCE-ELICITING STATUTORY DEFAULT RULES, 102 Colum. L. Rev. 2162 (2002)
102 Colum. L. Rev. 2162 p.2162
609.
ARTICLE: PREFERENCE-ESTIMATING STATUTORY DEFAULT RULES, 102 Colum. L. Rev. 2027
(2002)
102 Colum. L. Rev. 2027 p.2027
610.
ARTICLE: MORE SUPREME THAN COURT? THE FALL OF THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE
AND THE RISE OF JUDICIAL SUPREMACY, 102 Colum. L. Rev. 237 (2002)
102 Colum. L. Rev. 237 p.237
611.
ARTICLE: ALL ABOUT WORDS: EARLY UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE "JUDICIAL POWER" IN
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, 1776-1806, 101 Colum. L. Rev. 990 (2001)
101 Colum. L. Rev. 990 p.990
612.
5 Colum. L. Rev. 1597
5 Colum. L. Rev. 1597 p.1597
613.
ARTICLE: THE DEVIL IN THE DETAILS: A CRITIQUE OF KSR'S UNWARRANTED
REINTERPRETATION OF "PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL", 10 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 1
(2009)
614.
ARTICLE: Protecting Tobacco Advertising Under the Commercial Speech Doctrine: The Constitutional
Impact of Lorillard Tobacco Co., 8 Comm. L. & Pol'y 267 (2003)
615.
COMMENT: Bonneville v. Register of Copyrights: Broadcasters' Upstream Battle Over Streaming Rights, 1
CommLaw Conspectus 203 (2003)
616.
Article: The Synergy of Toxic Tort Law and Public Health: Lessons From a Century of Cigarettes, 41 Conn.
L. Rev. 561 (2008)
41 Conn. L. Rev. 561 p.561
617.
ARTICLE: The King is Dead, Long Live the King!: Sovereign Immunity and the Curious Case of
Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities, 38 Conn. L. Rev. 455 (2006)
38 Conn. L. Rev. 455 p.455
Page 70
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
618.
SYMPOSIUM: Enforcing The Social Compact Through Representative Litigation, 33 Conn. L. Rev. 1239
(2001)
33 Conn. L. Rev. 1239 p.1239
619.
SYMPOSIUM: The Role of State Attorneys General, 33 Conn. L. Rev. 1207 (2001)
33 Conn. L. Rev. 1207 p.1207
620.
SYMPOSIUM: A Most Dangerous Indiscretion: The Legal, Economic, and Political Legacy of the
Governments' Tobacco Litigation, 33 Conn. L. Rev. 1143 (2001)
33 Conn. L. Rev. 1143 p.1143
621.
Article: We Hear You Knocking, But You Can't Come In: The Supreme Court's Application of Common Law
in Cases of Knock and Announce Entry, 7 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J. 211 (2008)
622.
SYMPOSIUM: EXECUTIVE POWER IN YOUNGSTOWN'S SHADOWS, 19 Const. Commentary 87 (2002)
623.
ARTICLE: KYOTO OR NOT, HERE WE COME: THE PROMISE AND PERILS OF THE PIECEMEAL
APPROACH TO CLIMATE CHANGE REGULATION IN THE UNITED STATES, 15 Cornell J. L. & Pub.
Pol'y 369 (2006)
624.
ARTICLE: CHEVRON DEFERENCE AND AGENCY SELF-INTEREST, 13 Cornell J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 203
(2004)
625.
SYMPOSIUM: U.S. FOOD AND DRUG REGULATION IN ITS FIRST CENTURY AND BEYOND:
ARTICLE: FOOD, DRUGS, AND DROODS: A HISTORICAL CONSIDERATION OF DEFINITIONS AND
CATEGORIES IN AMERICAN FOOD AND DRUG LAW, 93 Cornell L. Rev. 1091 (2008)
626.
SYMPOSIUM: U.S. FOOD AND DRUG REGULATION IN ITS FIRST CENTURY AND BEYOND:
ARTICLE: THE FDA AND DEFERENCE LOST: A SELF-INFLICTED WOUND OR THE PRODUCT OF A
WOUNDED AGENCY? A RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR O'REILLY, 93 Cornell L. Rev. 981 (2008)
627.
SYMPOSIUM: U.S. FOOD AND DRUG REGULATION IN ITS FIRST CENTURY AND BEYOND:
ARTICLE: LOSING DEFERENCE IN THE FDA'S SECOND CENTURY: JUDICIAL REVIEW, POLITICS,
AND A DIMINISHED LEGACY OF EXPERTISE, 93 Cornell L. Rev. 939 (2008)
628.
SYMPOSIUM: U.S. FOOD AND DRUG REGULATION IN ITS FIRST CENTURY AND BEYOND:
ARTICLE: THE LITTLE AGENCY THAT COULD (ACT WITH INDIFFERENCE TO CONSTITUTIONAL
AND STATUTORY STRICTURES), 93 Cornell L. Rev. 901 (2008)
629.
NOTE: THE MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT, THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT, AND THE
FUTURE OF CONSUMER PROTECTION, 93 Cornell L. Rev. 659 (2008)
93 Cornell L. Rev. 659 p.659
630.
NOTE: CABINING THE DISCRETION OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS AND THE FEDERAL
COURTS: INTERPRETIVE RULES, STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, AND THE DEBATE OVER
COMMUNITY CONFINEMENT CENTERS, 91 Cornell L. Rev. 171 (2005)
91 Cornell L. Rev. 171 p.171
631.
ARTICLE: IS THE PRESIDENT BOUND BY THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS?, 90 Cornell L. Rev. 97
(2004)
Page 71
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
90 Cornell L. Rev. 97 p.97
632.
ARTICLE: FEDERAL COMMON LAW IN AN AGE OF TREATIES, 89 Cornell L. Rev. 892 (2004)
89 Cornell L. Rev. 892 p.892
633.
ARTICLE: STANDING FOR NOTHING: THE PARADOX OF DEMANDING CONCRETE CONTEXT FOR
FORMALIST ADJUDICATION, 89 Cornell L. Rev. 808 (2004)
89 Cornell L. Rev. 808 p.808
634.
ARTICLE: UNIDIMENSIONAL FEDERALISM: POWER AND PERSPECTIVE IN COMMERCE CLAUSE
ADJUDICATION, 88 Cornell L. Rev. 1199 (2003)
88 Cornell L. Rev. 1199 p.1199
635.
SYMPOSIUM: GETTING BEYOND CYNICISM: NEW THEORIES OF THE REGULATORY STATE
COMMENT: STRUCTURING LAWMAKING TO REDUCE COGNITIVE BIAS: A CRITICAL VIEW, 87
Cornell L. Rev. 616 (2002)
87 Cornell L. Rev. 616 p.616
636.
ARTICLE: AVOIDING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS AS A THREE-BRANCH PROBLEM, 86 Cornell
L. Rev. 831 (2001)
86 Cornell L. Rev. 831 p.831
637.
NOTE: EXTENDING CHEVRON DEFERENCE TO PRESIDENTIAL INTERPRETATIONS OF
AMBIGUITIES IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL SECURITY STATUTES DELEGATING
LAWMAKING POWER TO THE PRESIDENT, 86 Cornell L. Rev. 411 (2001)
86 Cornell L. Rev. 411 p.411
638.
CASENOTE: SSSMOKINNN': THE SUPREME COURT BURNS THE FDA'S AUTHORITY TO REGULATE
TOBACCO IN FDA V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP., 34 Creighton L. Rev. 1111 (2001)
34 Creighton L. Rev. 1111 p.1111
639.
ARTICLE: THE TOBACCO LITIGATION MERRY-GO-ROUND: DID THE MSA MAKE IT STOP?, 8
DePaul J. Health Care L. 615 (2005)
640.
NOTE AND COMMENT: DEPORTING NONVIOLENT VIOLENT ALIENS: MISAPPLICATION OF (B) TO
ALIENS CONVICTED OF DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE, 52 DePaul L. Rev. 901 (2003)
52 DePaul L. Rev. 901 p.901
641.
SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE: THE TOBACCO LITIGATION: A TENTATIVE ASSESSMENT, 51 DePaul L. Rev.
331 (2001)
51 DePaul L. Rev. 331 p.331
642.
NOTES AND COMMENTS: CAN WE LOSE THE BATTLE AND STILL WIN THE WAR?: THE FIGHT
AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AFTER THE DEATH OF TITLE III OF THE VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN ACT, 50 DePaul L. Rev. 919 (2001)
Page 72
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
50 DePaul L. Rev. 919 p.919
643.
ARTICLE: THE JURY AND POPULAR CULTURE, 50 DePaul L. Rev. 497 (2000)
50 DePaul L. Rev. 497 p.497
644.
ARTICLE: Shedding Light on the Preemption Doctrine in Product Liability Actions: Defining the Scope of
Buckman and Sprietsma, 6 Del. L. Rev. 143 (2003)
645.
Article: Government Lawyer as Cause Lawyer: A Study of Three High Profile Government Lawsuits, 86
Denv. U.L. Rev. 457 (2009)
86 Denv. U.L. Rev. 457 p.457
646.
ARTICLE: 2000 Supreme Court Survey, 9 Digest 101 (2001)
647.
ARTICLE: FROM THE SWORD TO THE PEN: A HISTORY AND CURRENT ANALYSIS OF U.S.
TOBACCO MARKETING REGULATIONS, 13 Drake J. Agric. L. 497 (2008)
648.
ARTICLE: CHEVRON'S MISTAKE, 58 Duke L.J. 549 (2009)
58 Duke L.J. 549 p.549
649.
Article: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AS THE NEW FEDERALISM, 57 Duke L.J. 2023 (2008)
57 Duke L.J. 2023 p.2023
650.
NOTE: TRAPPED IN THE GREENHOUSE?: REGULATING CARBON DIOXIDE AFTER FDA V. BROWN
& WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP., 54 Duke L.J. 147 (2004)
54 Duke L.J. 147 p.147
651.
ARTICLE: "VACATION" AT SEA: JUDICIAL REMEDIES AND EQUITABLE DISCRETION IN
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 53 Duke L.J. 291 (2003)
53 Duke L.J. 291 p.291
652.
ESSAY: THIRTY-FIRST ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ISSUE: POLITICS AND POLICY:
PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: REGULATORY REVIEW BY THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT: AN OVERVIEW AND POLICY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT
ISSUES, 51 Duke L.J. 851 (2001)
51 Duke L.J. 851 p.851
653.
ESSAY: SUPER-STATUTES, 50 Duke L.J. 1215 (2001)
50 Duke L.J. 1215 p.1215
654.
ARTICLE: Crossed Signals in a Wireless World: The Seventh Circuit's Misapplication of the Complete
Preemption Doctrine, 2004 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 14 (2004)
655.
ARTICLE: The Transformation of Modern Administrative Law: Changing Administrations and
Environmental Guidance Documents, 35 Ecology L.Q. 657 (2008)
Page 73
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
656.
NOTE: Loose Canons: The Supreme Court Guns for the Endangered Species Act in National Association of
Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 35 Ecology L.Q. 291 (2008)
657.
SYMPOSIUM: LITIGATING TAKINGS: PRIMER: Takings Law Today: A Primer for the Perplexed, 34
Ecology L.Q. 307 (2007)
658.
COMMENT: What Would You Do with a Fluorescent Green Pig?: How Novel Transgenic Products Reveal
Flaws in the Foundational Assumptions for the Regulation of Biotechnology, 34 Ecology L.Q. 201 (2007)
659.
NOTE: American Chemistry Council v. Johnson: Community Right to Know, But About What?: D.C. Circuit
Takes Restrictive View of EPCRA, 33 Ecology L.Q. 583 (2006)
660.
COMMENT: Sailing by Looking in the Rearview Mirror: EPA's Unreasonable Deferral of Ballast-Water
Regulation to a Now Ineffective Coast Guard, 31 Ecology L.Q. 665 (2004)
661.
ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAW: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,
28 Ecology L.Q. 355 (2001)
662.
ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAW: FOREWORD, 28
Ecology L.Q. 225 (2001)
663.
THE 2008 RANDOLPH W. THROWER SYMPOSIUM: LEGAL SCIENCE: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY
EXAMINATION OF THE USE AND MISUSE OF SCIENCE IN THE LAW: ARTICLE AND ESSAY:
THROWER KEYNOTE ADDRESS: THE ROLE OF SCIENCE IN MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA, 58 Emory
L.J. 411 (2008)
58 Emory L.J. 411 p.411
664.
Article: ABORTION, EQUALITY, AND ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION, 56 Emory L.J. 865 (2007)
56 Emory L.J. 865 p.865
665.
ARTICLE: THE RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES SUBJECTED TO REDUCTIONS IN FORCE: A CRITICAL
EVALUATION, 6 Empl. Rts. & Employ. Pol'y J. 263 (2002)
666.
NOTE: CWA AND ESA: NINE IS A PARTY, TEN IS A CROWD NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME
BUILDERS V. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, 127 S. CT. 2518 (2007)., 29 Energy L. J. 703 (2008)
29 Energy L. J. 703 p.703
667.
NOTE: CALIFORNIA EX REL. LOCKYER v. FERC: In Which the 9th Circuit Tells the FERC "Yes, You
Can", 27 Energy L. J. 205 (2006)
27 Energy L. J. 205 p.205
668.
ARTICLE: RELIABILITY-BASED COMPETITION IN WHOLESALE ELECTRICITY: LEGAL AND
POLICY PERSPECTIVES, 25 Energy L. J. 319 (2004)
25 Energy L. J. 319 p.319
669.
COMMENT: COMMON LAW ON ICE: USING FEDERAL JUDGE-MADE NUISANCE LAW TO
ADDRESS THE INTERSTATE EFFECTS OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, 37 Envtl. L. 463 (2007)
37 Envtl. L. 463 p.463
Page 74
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
670.
AMICUS BRIEF: BRIEF FOR NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL AS AMICI CURIAE
SUPPORTING RESPONDENT, UNITED STATES V. ATLANTIC RESEARCH CORP., NO. 06-562 (U.S.
APR. 5, 2007), 37 Envtl. L. 411 (2007)
37 Envtl. L. 411 p.411
671.
ARTICLE: ESA REDUCTIONS IN RECLAMATION WATER CONTRACT DELIVERIES: A FIFTH
AMENDMENT TAKING OF PROPERTY?, 36 Envtl. L. 1331 (2006)
36 Envtl. L. 1331 p.1331
672.
2005 NINTH CIRCUIT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: CASE SUMMARIES, 36 Envtl. L. 907 (2006)
36 Envtl. L. 907 p.907
673.
CLEAR THE AIR: COUNTERPOINT: OPPORTUNITIES LOST AND OPPORTUNITIES GAINED:
SEPARATING TRUTH FROM MYTH IN THE WESTERN RANCHING DEBATE, 36 Envtl. L. 481 (2006)
36 Envtl. L. 481 p.481
674.
ARTICLE: STANDING AND GLOBAL WARMING: IS INJURY TO ALL INJURY TO NONE?, 35 Envtl. L.
1 (2005)
35 Envtl. L. 1 p.1
675.
2000 NINTH CIRCUT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: CHAPTERS MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM
SEWER SYSTEMS: IS COMPLIANCE WITH STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ONLY A PIPE
DREAM?, 31 Envtl. L. 767 (2001)
31 Envtl. L. 767 p.767
676.
ARTICLE: GLOBAL WARMING: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STATE OF THE SCIENCE AND A
SURVEY OF SOME LEGAL RESPONSES, 79 Fla. Bar J. 1 (2005)
677.
FEATURES: JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE IMMIGRATION DECISIONS: CAN THE
DOCTRINE OF "EJUSDEM GENERIS" SAVE IT FROM EXTINCTION?, 78 Fla. Bar J. 32 (2004)
678.
ARTICLE: THE 'LAW OF TOBACCO' IS A MAJOR CONTRIBUTING FACTOR THAT HAMPERS
EFFECTIVE RESOLUTION TO THE COUNTRY'S TOBACCO PROBLEM, 6 Fl. Coastal L. Rev. 17 (2004)
679.
NOTE: THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: DANGERS OF HEDGE FUNDS IN OUR FINANCIAL
MARKETS, 60 Fla. L. Rev. 183 (2008)
60 Fla. L. Rev. 183 p.183
680.
NOTE: IN COUNTRY, ON PAROLE, OUT OF LUCK-REGULATING AWAY ALIEN ELIGIBILITY FOR
ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS CONTRARY TO CONGRESSIONAL INTENT AND SOUND IMMIGRATION
POLICY, 58 Fla. L. Rev. 713 (2006)
58 Fla. L. Rev. 713 p.713
681.
ARTICLE: WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES: THEORY, PRACTICE, AND INTEGRITY AT THE
SUPREME COURT, 34 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 183 (2007)
34 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 183 p.183
Page 75
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
682.
COMMENT: CLEARING THE AIR: USE OF CHEVRON'S STEP ONE TO INVALIDATE EPA'S
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PROVISION, 33 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 259 (2005)
33 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 259 p.259
683.
ARTICLE: CAN ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRET RIGHTS ENFORCEABLE UNDER
SECTION 1983?: WHY CHEVRON DEFERENCE SURVIVES SANDOVAL AND GONZAGA, 32 Fla. St.
U.L. Rev. 843 (2005)
32 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 843 p.843
684.
SYMPOSIUM: Does the Solicitor General Advantage Thwart the Rule of Law in the Administrative State?,
28 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 459 (2000)
28 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 459 p.459
685.
SYMPOSIUM: Regulatory Incrementalism and Moral Choices: A Comment on Adlerian Welfarism, 28 Fla.
St. U.L. Rev. 375 (2000)
28 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 375 p.375
686.
SYMPOSIUM: An Apology for Administrative Law in the Contracting State, 28 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 215
(2000)
28 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 215 p.215
687.
SYMPOSIUM: Interest Groups and Public Interested Regulation, 28 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 137 (2000)
28 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 137 p.137
688.
SYMPOSIUM: Public Interested Regulation, 28 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 7 (2000)
28 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 7 p.7
689.
ARTICLE: Is Three a Crowd or Company?: Behind-the-Counter Drugs, 63 Food Drug L.J. 865 (2008)
690.
ARTICLE: Medical Device Reporting: Issues with Class III Medical Devices, 62 Food Drug L.J. 573 (2007)
691.
ARTICLE: What Are Biologics? A Comparative Legislative, Regulatory and Scientific Analysis, 62 Food
Drug L.J. 257 (2007)
692.
ARTICLE: Not the Next Tobacco: Defenses to Obesity Claims, 61 Food Drug L.J. 445 (2006)
693.
ARTICLE: Obesity, Food Marketing and Consumer Litigation: Threat or Opportunity?, 61 Food Drug L.J.
419 (2006)
694.
ARTICLE: Old Drugs, New Uses: Solving a Hatch-Waxman Patent Predicament, 59 Food Drug L.J. 155
(2004)
695.
ARTICLE: The First Amendment and Federal Court Deference to the Food and Drug Administration: The
Times They Are A-Changin' n1, 59 Food Drug L.J. 31 (2004)
696.
ARTICLE: A State of Extinction: Does Food and Drug Administration Approval of a Prescription Drug
Label Extinguish State Claims for Inadequate Warning?, 58 Food Drug L.J. 287 (2003)
Page 76
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
697.
ARTICLE: Can FDA Seek Restitution or Disgorgement?, 58 Food Drug L.J. 129 (2003)
698.
ARTICLE: Challenging Food and Drug Administration Interpretations of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, 58 Food Drug L.J. 1 (2003)
699.
ARTICLE: Biotechnology on the RAC--FDA/NIH Regulation of Human Gene Therapy, 55 Food Drug L.J.
575 (2000)
700.
ARTICLE: The WLF Case Thus Far: Not With a Bang, But a Whimper +, 55 Food Drug L.J. 477 (2000)
701.
ARTICLE: THE POLLUTER'S COURT: EXPANDING POLLUTER RIGHTS WHILE LIMITING
POLLUTEE RIGHTS, 12 Fordham Envtl. Law J. 329 (2001)
702.
ARTICLE: THE ROAD TO CLEAN AIR IS PAVED WITH MANY OBSTACLES: THE U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SHOULD GRANT A WAIVER FOR CALIFORNIA TO
REGULATE AUTOMOBILE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS VIA ASSEMBLY BILL 1493, 19 Fordham
Envtl. Law Rev. 39 (2009)
703.
NOTE: Protecting Public Health from Outside the Physician's Office: A Century of FDA Regulation from
Drug Safety Labeling to Off-Label Drug Promotion, 18 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 117 (2007)
704.
NOTE: ENDING THE WIDOW PENALTY: WHY ARE SURVIVING ALIEN SPOUSES OF DECEASED
CITIZENS BEING DEPORTED?, 77 Fordham L. Rev. 1873 (2009)
77 Fordham L. Rev. 1873 p.1873
705.
NOTE: SINGLED OUT: A PROPOSAL TO EXTEND ASYLUM TO THE UNMARRIED PARTNERS OF
CHINESE NATIONALS FLEEING THE ONE-CHILD POLICY, 75 Fordham L. Rev. 2153 (2007)
75 Fordham L. Rev. 2153 p.2153
706.
SYMPOSIUM: THE JURISPRUDENCE OF JUSTICE STEVENS: PANEL III: ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW/STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: SOLVING THE PUZZLE OF MEAD AND CHRISTENSEN:
WHAT WOULD JUSTICE STEVENS DO?, 74 Fordham L. Rev. 1877 (2006)
74 Fordham L. Rev. 1877 p.1877
707.
PANEL V: RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY ON THE INTERNET: SHORTNESS OF VISION:
REGULATORY AMBITION IN THE DIGITAL AGE, 74 Fordham L. Rev. 695 (2005)
74 Fordham L. Rev. 695 p.695
708.
COLLOQUIUM: DEBORAH L. RHODES ACCESS TO JUSTICE: ARTICLE: BURSTING THE CHEVRON
BUBBLE: CLARIFYING THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN TROUBLED TIMES, 73 Fordham L.
Rev. 1103 (2004)
73 Fordham L. Rev. 1103 p.1103
709.
LECTURES THE ROBERT L. LEVINE DISTINGUISHED LECTURE SERIES: SMALL THINGS LIKE
REASONS ARE PUT IN A JAR:+ REASON AND LEGITIMACY IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE, 70
Fordham L. Rev. 17 (2001)
70 Fordham L. Rev. 17 p.17
Page 77
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
710.
NOTE: CLIMATE CHANGE LITIGATION: THE FEDERAL COMMON LAW OF INTERSTATE
NUISANCE AND FEDERALISM CONCERNS, 40 Ga. L. Rev. 661 (2006)
40 Ga. L. Rev. 661 p.661
711.
ARTICLE: HARMFUL OUTPUT IN THE ANTITRUST DOMAIN: LESSONS FROM THE TOBACCO
INDUSTRY, 39 Ga. L. Rev. 321 (2005)
39 Ga. L. Rev. 321 p.321
712.
NOTE & COMMENT: THE NONDELEGATION DOCTRINE AFTER WHITMAN V. AMERICAN
TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS: CONSTITUTIONAL PRECEDENT BREATHES A SIGH OF RELIEF, 18 Ga.
St. U.L. Rev. 627 (2001)
18 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 627 p.627
713.
NOTE & COMMENT: CHANDLER V. UNITED STATES: DOES THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY HAVE A
LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PRESENT MITIGATION EVIDENCE IN ELEVENTH CIRCUIT DEATH
PENALTY CASES?, 18 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 563 (2001)
18 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 563 p.563
714.
ARTICLE: The Immigration Rule of Lenity and Chevron Deference, 17 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 515 (2003)
715.
NOTE: When Clarity Means Ambiguity: An Examination of Statutory Interpretation at the Environmental
Protection Agency, 96 Geo. L.J. 1347 (2008)
96 Geo. L.J. 1347 p.1347
716.
ARTICLE: The Continuum of Deference: Supreme Court Treatment of Agency Statutory Interpretations
from Chevron to Hamdan, 96 Geo. L.J. 1083 (2008)
96 Geo. L.J. 1083 p.1083
717.
ARTICLE: WHO'S AFRAID OF THE APA? WHAT THE PATENT SYSTEM CAN LEARN FROM
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 95 Geo. L.J. 269 (2007)
95 Geo. L.J. 269 p.269
718.
ARTICLE: Private Language, Public Laws: The Central Role of Legislative Intent in Statutory
Interpretation, 93 Geo. L.J. 427 (2005)
93 Geo. L.J. 427 p.427
719.
ESSAY: On Revolution and Wetland Regulations, 90 Geo. L.J. 2143 (2002)
90 Geo. L.J. 2143 p.2143
720.
SYMPOSIUM: THE BICENTENNIAL CELEBRATION OF THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT: "Uncle Sam Modernizes his Justice": Inventing the Federal District Courts of the
Twentieth Century for the District of Columbia and the Nation, 90 Geo. L.J. 607 (2002)
90 Geo. L.J. 607 p.607
721.
ARTICLE: Chevron's Domain, 89 Geo. L.J. 833 (2001)
Page 78
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
89 Geo. L.J. 833 p.833
722.
Annual Review of Administrative Law: Essay: A New Interpretation, an Absurd Result: How HHS Is
Short-Changing Children with Severe Mental Illness, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1114 (2009)
77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1114 p.1114
723.
Is It Safe to Chevron "Two-Step" in a Hurricane? A Critical Examination of How Expanding the
Government's Role in Disaster Relief Will Only Exacerbate the Damage, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1392
(2008)
76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1392 p.1392
724.
Article: Deference and Democracy, 75 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 761 (2007)
75 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 761 p.761
725.
NOTE: Seeing Through the Smoke: The Need for National Legislation Banning Smoking in Bars and
Restaurants, 75 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 662 (2007)
75 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 662 p.662
726.
ARTICLE: The (Non)Uniqueness of Environmental Law, 74 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 260 (2006)
74 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 260 p.260
727.
LAW AND DEMOCRACY: A SYMPOSIUM ON THE LAW GOVERNING OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS:
Regulating Section 527 Organizations, 73 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1000 (2005)
73 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1000 p.1000
728.
RECENT DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT: Telecommunications Law, 73 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 931 (2005)
73 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 931 p.931
729.
RECENT DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT: Administrative Law, 73 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 709 (2005)
73 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 709 p.709
730.
NOTE: Putting Calorie and Fat Counts on the Table: Should Mandatory Nutritional Disclosure Laws Apply
to Restaurant Foods?, 73 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 377 (2005)
73 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 377 p.377
731.
RECENT DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT: CHAPTER: Nonlegislative Rules, 72 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 893 (2004)
72 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 893 p.893
732.
ARTICLE: Pyrrhic Political Penalties: Why the Public Would Lose Under the "Penalty Default Canon", 72
Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 724 (2004)
72 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 724 p.724
Page 79
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
733.
RECENT DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT: Introduction: Mead in the Trenches, 71 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 347 (2003)
71 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 347 p.347
734.
36 Gonz. L. Rev. 433, 36 Gonz. L. Rev. 433
36 Gonz. L. Rev. 433 p.433
735.
NOTE: WILL INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS BE FORCED TO TURN IN THEIR COPYRIGHT
INFRINGING CUSTOMERS? THE POWER OF THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT'S
SUBPOENA PROVISION AFTER IN RE CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, 29 Hamline L. Rev. 115 (2006)
736.
CASENOTE: Prestidigitation and the Chevron Doctrine: Food and Drug Administration v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corporation, 120 S.Ct. 1291 (2000), 24 Hamline L. Rev. 285 (2001)
737.
ARTICLE: MASSACHUSETTS V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, 31 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev.
531 (2007)
738.
ARTICLE: DEFENDING OVERSTATEMENT: THE SYMBOLIC CLEAN AIR ACT AND CARBON
DIOXIDE, 30 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 99 (2006)
739.
ARTICLE: FINDING A CURE: THE CASE FOR REGULATION AND OVERSIGHT OF ELECTRONIC
HEALTH RECORD SYSTEMS, 22 Harv. J. Law and Tec 103 (2008)
740.
ARTICLE: FDA Regulation of Human Cloning: Usurpation or Statesmanship?, 15 Harv. J. Law and Tec 85
(2001)
741.
ESSAY: The Modern Regulatory Administrative State: A Response to Changing Circumstances, 38 Harv. J.
On Legis. 291 (2001)
742.
ESSAY: A Crisis of Faith: Tobacco and the Madisonian Democracy, 37 Harv. J. On Legis. 433 (2000)
743.
ARTICLE: AGAINST FOREIGN LAW, 29 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 291 (2005)
744.
RECENT CASE: THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, 1999 D.C. CIRCUIT REVIVES
NONDELEGATION DOCTRINE...OR DOES IT?: AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC. V. EPA,
175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. CIR. 1999, modified, 195 F.3d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1999), 23 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 581
(2000)
745.
BOOK REVIEW: PREFERENCES, LAWS, AND DEFAULT RULESStatutory Default Rules: How To
Interpret Unclear Legislation. By Einer Elhauge. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press. 2008. Pp. 386. $55.00.,
122 Harv. L. Rev. 2104 (2009)
122 Harv. L. Rev. 2104 p.2104
746.
NOTE: JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CONGRESSIONAL FACTFINDING, 122 Harv. L. Rev. 767 (2008)
122 Harv. L. Rev. 767 p.767
747.
ESSAY: THE ASCENT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE AND THE DEMISE OF MERCY, 121 Harv. L.
Rev. 1332 (2008)
121 Harv. L. Rev. 1332 p.1332
Page 80
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
748.
NOTE: THE CHARMING BETSY CANON, SEPARATION OF POWERS, AND CUSTOMARY
INTERNATIONAL LAW, 121 Harv. L. Rev. 1215 (2008)
121 Harv. L. Rev. 1215 p.1215
749.
THE SUPREME COURT, 2006 TERM: LEADING CASE: Federal Statutes and Regulations -- Review of
Administrative Action -- Limits on Agency Discretion, 121 Harv. L. Rev. 415 (2007)
121 Harv. L. Rev. 415 p.415
750.
THE SUPREME COURT, 2006 TERM: LEADING CASE: Federal Statutes and Regulations -- Review of
Administrative Action -- Deference to Agency Interpretation of Conflicting Statutes, 121 Harv. L. Rev. 405
(2007)
121 Harv. L. Rev. 405 p.405
751.
THE SUPREME COURT, 2006 TERM: LEADING CASE: Federal Statutes and Regulations -- Review of
Administrative Action -- Chevron Deference, 121 Harv. L. Rev. 395 (2007)
121 Harv. L. Rev. 395 p.395
752.
NOTE: THE TWO FACES OF CHEVRON, 120 Harv. L. Rev. 1562 (2007)
120 Harv. L. Rev. 1562 p.1562
753.
RECENT CASE: Administrative Law - Judicial Review of Agency Rulemaking - District of Columbia Circuit
Vacates Securities and Exchange Commission's "Hedge Fund Rule." - Goldstein v. SEC, 451 F.3d 873
(D.C. Cir. 2006)., 120 Harv. L. Rev. 1394 (2007)
120 Harv. L. Rev. 1394 p.1394
754.
LEADING CASES, 120 Harv. L. Rev. 361 (2006)
120 Harv. L. Rev. 361 p.361
755.
RECENT CASE: Statutory Interpretation - Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act - Third Circuit Holds
That the FDA Can Obtain Restitution on Behalf of Consumers. - United States v. Lane Labs-USA Inc., 427
F.3d 219 (3d Cir. 2005)., 119 Harv. L. Rev. 2636 (2006)
119 Harv. L. Rev. 2636 p.2636
756.
ARTICLE: SEPARATION OF PARTIES, NOT POWERS, 119 Harv. L. Rev. 2311 (2006)
119 Harv. L. Rev. 2311 p.2311
757.
BOOK REVIEW: NO FRILLS TEXTUALISM: Judging Under Uncertainty. By Adrian Vermeule.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press., 119 Harv. L. Rev. 2041 (2006)
119 Harv. L. Rev. 2041 p.2041
758.
ARTICLE: LEGISLATIVE ALLOCATION OF DELEGATED POWER: UNCERTAINTY, RISK, AND THE
CHOICE BETWEEN AGENCIES AND COURTS, 119 Harv. L. Rev. 1035 (2006)
119 Harv. L. Rev. 1035 p.1035
Page 81
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
759.
ARTICLE: CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION AND THE WAR ON TERRORISM, 118 Harv. L. Rev.
2047 (2005)
118 Harv. L. Rev. 2047 p.2047
760.
NOTE: "HOW CLEAR IS CLEAR" IN CHEVRON'S STEP ONE?, 118 Harv. L. Rev. 1687 (2005)
118 Harv. L. Rev. 1687 p.1687
761.
SYMPOSIUM: PUBLIC VALUES IN AN ERA OF PRIVATIZATION: EXTENDING PUBLIC LAW NORMS
THROUGH PRIVATIZATION, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 1285 (2003)
116 Harv. L. Rev. 1285 p.1285
762.
RECENT CASE: Arbitration - Fifth Circuit Holds Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Claims Arbitrable Despite
Contrary Agency Interpretation., 116 Harv. L. Rev. 1201 (2003)
116 Harv. L. Rev. 1201 p.1201
763.
ARTICLE: AGENCY RULES WITH THE FORCE OF LAW: THE ORIGINAL CONVENTION, 116 Harv. L.
Rev. 467 (2002)
116 Harv. L. Rev. 467 p.467
764.
ARTICLE: PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION, 114 Harv. L. Rev. 2245 (2001)
114 Harv. L. Rev. 2245 p.2245
765.
THE SUPREME COURT, 1999 TERM: The Statistics, 114 Harv. L. Rev. 390 (2000)
114 Harv. L. Rev. 390 p.390
766.
THE SUPREME COURT, 1999 TERMLEADING CASESIII. Federal Preemption of State Law - continued,
114 Harv. L. Rev. 359 (2000)
114 Harv. L. Rev. 359 p.359
767.
THE SUPREME COURT, 1999 TERMFOREWORD: THE DOCUMENT AND THE DOCTRINE, 114 Harv.
L. Rev. 26 (2000)
114 Harv. L. Rev. 26 p.26
768.
ARTICLE: SUBSTITUTION STRATEGIES, 121 Harv. L. Rev. F. 21 (2007)
769.
ALL RESPONSES: SUBSTITUTION STRATEGIES, 120 Harv. L. Rev. F. 21 (2006)
770.
CASE COMMENT: Mediation's Boundaries: In re Licensure of Penny v. State ex rel. Wyoming, 11 Harv.
Negotiation L. Rev. 453 (2006)
771.
NOTE: The Marlboro Man's Secret versus the Public Health: Trade Secrets and Unconstitutional Takings
in Phillip Morris v. Reilly*, 28 Hastings Const. L.Q. 829 (2001)
772.
ARTICLE: Supreme Court Voting Behavior: 1999 Term, 28 Hastings Const. L.Q. 543 (2001)
Page 82
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
773.
Note: The "Magic Words" of 554: A New Test for Formal Adjudication Under the Administrative
Procedure Act, 56 Hastings L.J. 1067 (2005)
56 Hastings L.J. 1067 p.1067
774.
ARTICLE: Envy and Jealousy: A Study of Separation of Powers and Judicial Review, 52 Hastings L.J. 47
(2000)
52 Hastings L.J. 47 p.47
775.
BOOK REVIEW LEARNING FROM HISTORY IN THE CIGARETTE DEBATE:, 10 Health Matrix 205
(2000)
776.
ARTICLE: EYES WIDE SHUT: THE AMBIGUOUS "POLITICAL ACTIVITY" PROHIBITION AND ITS
EFFECTS ON 501(c)(3) ORGANIZATIONS n1, 8 Hous. Bus. & Tax L.J. 113 (2007)
777.
ARTICLE: DEFERENCE UNDER THE CLEAR REFLECTION OF INCOME REQUIREMENT: SUI
GENERIS, 5 Hous. Bus. & Tax L.J. 160 (2005)
778.
ARTICLE: Human Tissues and Reproductive Cloning: New Technologies Challenge FDA, 3 Hous. J. Health
L. & Pol'y 1 (2002)
779.
ARTICLE: PREEMPTION BY STEALTH, 45 Hous. L. Rev. 1659 (2009)
45 Hous. L. Rev. 1659 p.1659
780.
NOTE: CLEAN AIR NEVER SMELLED SO BAD: UNION OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA V. ATLANTIC
RICHFIELD CO., 38 Hous. L. Rev. 1557 (2002)
38 Hous. L. Rev. 1557 p.1557
781.
ARTICLE: CONSTITUTIONALIZING FOOD AND DRUG LAW: WHEN AVOIDANCE IS RIGHT, 38 Hous.
L. Rev. 1383 (2002)
38 Hous. L. Rev. 1383 p.1383
782.
NOTE & COMMENT: Deconstructing Gonzales v. Oregon: When Political Agendas Yield to Rudimentary
Notions of Federalism and Statutory Interpretation, 50 How. L.J. 229 (2006)
50 How. L.J. 229 p.229
783.
ARTICLE: THE HISTORY OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE POWER AND THE
FUTURE OF REGULATORY GOVERNANCE, 38 Idaho L. Rev. 89 (2001)
38 Idaho L. Rev. 89 p.89
784.
NOTES: STRUGGLING FOR AIR: THE KYOTO PROTOCOL, CITIZENS' SUITS UNDER THE CLEAN
AIR ACT, AND THE UNITED STATES' OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE, 14
Ind. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 855 (2004)
785.
ARTICLE: The Statutory Commander in Chief, 81 Ind. L.J. 1169 (2005)
81 Ind. L.J. 1169 p.1169
Page 83
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
786.
Financial: Developments in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act During 2005-06: An Overview of Important
Changes in Case Law and Pending Legislation, 2 ISJLP 737 (2006)
787.
ARTICLE: Antitrust Process and Vertical Deference: Judicial Review of State Regulatory Inaction, 93 Iowa
L. Rev. 185 (2007)
93 Iowa L. Rev. 185 p.185
788.
ARTICLE: The Statutory President, 90 Iowa L. Rev. 539 (2005)
90 Iowa L. Rev. 539 p.539
789.
ARTICLE: PUSHING THE ENVELOPE: WHY WASHINGTON, DC AIRSPACE RESTRICTIONS DO NOT
ENHANCE SECURITY, 74 J. Air L. & Com. 335 (2009)
790.
ARTICLE: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN AVIATION LAW, 71 J. Air L. & Com. 101 (2006)
791.
COVERING THE APPELLATE COURTS: PREFACE: BRINGING LIGHT TO THE HALLS OF SHADOW,
9 J. App. Prac. & Process 291 (2007)
792.
ARTICLE: Three Legal Frameworks for Regulating Genetic Technology, 19 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol'y
1 (2002)
793.
Positive Political Theory and the Law: Courts, Congress, and Public Policy, Part I: The FDA, the Courts,
and the Regulation of Tobacco*, 15 J. Contemp. Legal Issues 163 (2006)
794.
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: The Judiciary Is A They, Not An It:
Interpretive Theory and the Fallacy of Division, 14 J. Contemp. Legal Issues 549 (2005)
795.
COMMENT: GONZALES V. OREGON AND THE FUTURE OF AGENCY-MADE CRIMINAL LAW, 97 J.
Crim. L. & Criminology 1261 (2007)
796.
SUPREME COURT REVIEW: Massachusetts v. EPA, 22 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 301 (2007)
797.
CURRENT ISSUES IN TOBACCO REGULATION, LITIGATION, AND POLICY: COMMENT: TOBACCO
CONTROL AND SNUS: TIME TO TAKE A STAND, 11 J. Health Care L. & Pol'y 127 (2008)
798.
CURRENT ISSUES IN TOBACCO REGULATION, LITIGATION, AND POLICY: SYMPOSIUM: ROOM
FOR TWO IN TOBACCO CONTROL: LIMITS ON THE PREEMPTIVE SCOPE OF THE PROPOSED
LEGISLATION GRANTING FDA OVERSIGHT OF TOBACCO+, 11 J. Health Care L. & Pol'y 57 (2008)
799.
CURRENT ISSUES IN TOBACCO REGULATION, LITIGATION, AND POLICY: SYMPOSIUM: "SAFER"
TOBACCO PRODUCTS: REDUCING HARM OR GIVING FALSE HOPE? TOBACCO LITIGATION
WITHOUT THE SMOKE? CIGARETTE COMPANIES IN THE SMOKELESS TOBACCO INDUSTRY, 11 J.
Health Care L. & Pol'y 7 (2008)
800.
NOTES AND COMMENT: R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO. V. SHEWRY: HAS THE TOBACCO
INDUSTRY MET ITS MATCH?, 10 J. Health Care L. & Pol'y 165 (2007)
801.
SYMPOSIUM: PUBLIC HEALTH LAW AS ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: EXAMPLE LESSONS, 10 J. Health
Care L. & Pol'y 61 (2007)
802.
SYMPOSIUM: "ELIMINATING LEGAL, REGULATORY, AND ECONOMIC BARRIERS TO BIODEFENSE
VACCINE DEVELOPMENT": ARTICLE: Old Legacies and New Paradigms: Confusing "Research" and
"Treatment" and Its Consequences in Responding to Emergent Health Threats, 8 J. Health Care L. & Pol'y
Page 84
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
38 (2005)
803.
COMMENT: Why Tobacco Litigation Has Not Been Successful in the United Kingdom: A Comparative
Analysis of Tobacco Litigation in the United States and the United Kingdom, 25 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS.
485 (2005)
804.
ARTICLE: Congress's Transformative "Republican Revolution" in 2001-2006 and the Future of One-Party
Rule, 23 J. L. & Politics 233 (2007)
805.
ARTICLE: High Level Nuclear Waste on Indian Reservations: Pushing the Tribal Sovereignty Envelope to
the Edge?, 21 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 287 (2001)
806.
ARTICLE: Constitutional Limitations of State Growth Management Programs, 18 J. Land Use & Envtl.
Law 145 (2002)
807.
ARTICLE: THE JURISDICTION OF THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION TO REGULATE
TOBACCO PRODUCTS UNDER THE FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT: Food and Drug
Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation et al., 20 J. NAALJ 167 (2000)
808.
ARTICLE: Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, Exploring the Merits of Greenhouse Gas
Regulation, 28 J. Nat'l Ass'n L. Jud. 193 (2008)
809.
ARTICLE: THE DANGERS OF DAUBERT CREEP IN THE REGULATORY REALM 14 J.L. & POL'Y 165
(2006) n3, 26 J. Nat'l Ass'n L. Jud. 469 (2006)
810.
ARTICLE: THE HISTORIC AND MODERN DOCTRINES OF EQUIVALENTS AND CLAIMING THE
FUTURE: PART II (1870-1952), 87 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 441 (2005)
87 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 441 p.450
811.
ARTICLE: The Historic and Modern Doctrines Of Equivalents and Claiming the Future, Part I(1790-1870),
87 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 371 (2005)
87 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 371 p.381
812.
ARTICLE: Extending Provisional Rights Beyond (D), 87 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 361 (2005)
87 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 361 p.366
813.
ARTICLE: Does the U.S.P.T.O. have Authority to Grant Patents for Novel Varieties of Sexually
Reproducing Plants?, 83 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 737 (2001)
83 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 737 p.739
83 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 737 p.747
814.
96 J. Tax'n 366
96 J. Tax'n 366 p.371
815.
ARTICLE: The No Child Left Behind Act: Is it an Unfunded Mandate or a Promotion of Federal
Educational Ideals?, 37 J.L. & Educ. 193 (2008)
816.
ARTICLE: Application of Administrative Law to Health Care Reform: The Real Politik of Crossing the
Quality Chasm, 16 J.L. & Health 65 (2001)
Page 85
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
817.
ARTICLE: THE DANGERS OF DAUBERT CREEP IN THE REGULATORY REALM, 14 J.L. & Pol'y 165
(2006)
818.
Article: THE RISE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE: A PRESCRIPTION FOR LAWLESSNESS, 17 Kan.
J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 362 (2008)
819.
ARTICLE: AMERICAN INDIANS AND REIMPORTATION: IN THE WAKE OF TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY
AND FEDERAL PRE-EMPTION, IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT "CHEAP DRUGS.", 15 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y
317 (2006)
820.
IMPROVING STATE GOVERNANCE: CRITICAL ISSUES IN STATE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: A
SYMPOSIUM: ARTICLE: Problematic Application of Florida Administrative Law to Police Power Public
Health Actions, 68 La. L. Rev. 1145 (2008)
68 La. L. Rev. 1145 p.1145
821.
ARTICLE: On the Borderlands of Chevron's Empire: An Essay on Title VII, Agency Procedures and
Priorities, and the Power of Judicial Review, 62 La. L. Rev. 317 (2002)
62 La. L. Rev. 317 p.317
822.
ARTICLE: The Impact of Alcohol and Tobacco Advertising on the Latino Community as a Civil Rights
Issue, 16 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 71 (2005)
823.
SCIENCE IN THE REGULATORY PROCESS: "REGULATORY DAUBERT": A PROPOSAL TO
ENHANCE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AGENCY SCIENCE BY INCORPORATING DAUBERT PRINCIPLES
INTO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 66 Law & Contemp. Probs. 7 (2003)
824.
66 Law & Contemp. Probs. No. 4 7, 66 Law & Contemp. Probs. No. 4 7
66 Law & Contemp. Probs. No. 4 7 p.18
825.
ARTICLE: Dildos, Artificial Vaginas, and Phthalates: How Toxic Sex Toys Illustrate a Broader Problem for
Consumer Protection, 25 Law & Ineq. J. 203 (2007)
826.
ARTICLE: The Somewhat less Reluctant Litigant: Japan's Changing View Towards Civil Litigation, 32 Law
& Pol'y Int'l Bus. 769 (2001)
827.
2003 L. Rev. M.S.U.-D.C.L. 251
2003 L. Rev. M.S.U.-D.C.L. 251 p.251
828.
CASENOTE: VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES v. UNITED STATES ex rel. STEVENS:
THE DECREASED EFFECTIVENESS OF THE QUI TAM ACTION, 2001 L. Rev. M.S.U.-D.C.L. 161
(2001)
2001 L. Rev. M.S.U.-D.C.L. 161 p.161
829.
ARTICLE: Court holds state can challenge EPA's denial of rulemaking petition, 9 Lawyers J. 3 (2007)
830.
DEPARTMENT: BY THE BOOK: A QUESTION OF INTENT, 24 Los Angeles Lawyer 25 (2001)
831.
SYMPOSIUM: TOBACCO CONTROL STRATEGIES: PAST EFFICACY AND FUTURE PROMISE, 41
Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1721 (2008)
41 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1721 p.1721
Page 86
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
832.
Symposium: FREE SPEECH AND PUBLIC HEALTH: A POPULATION-BASED APPROACH TO THE
FIRST AMENDMENT, 39 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 363 (2006)
39 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 363 p.363
833.
SYMPOSIUM: ACCESS TO JUSTICE: CAN BUSINESS CO-EXIST WITH THE CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM?:
100 YEARS OF CONFLICT: THE PAST AND FUTURE OF TORT RETRENCHMENT, 38 Loy. L.A. L.
Rev. 1021 (2005)
38 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1021 p.1021
834.
NOTE: ADMINISTRATIVE DENATURALIZATION n1: IS THERE "NOTHING YOU CAN DO THAT
CAN'T BE UNDONE"? n2, 34 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 895 (2001)
34 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 895 p.895
835.
ARTICLE: FCC Authority To Regulate the Internet: Creating It and Limiting It, 35 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 15
(2003)
35 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 15 p.15
836.
ARTICLE: Article II as Interpretive Theory: Bush v. Gore and the Retreat from Erie, 34 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 89
(2002)
34 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 89 p.89
837.
FEATURE: THE LAW COURT'S PHILOSOPHY OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: THE
LEGISLATURE AS ARCHITECT, THE COURT AS BUILDER, 19 Maine Bar J. 164 (2004)
838.
ARTICLE: No Two-Stepping in the Laboratories: State Deference Standards and Their Implications for
Improving the Chevron Doctrine, 39 McGeorge L. Rev. 977 (2008)
39 McGeorge L. Rev. 977 p.977
839.
SYMPOSIUM: CALABRESI'S THE COSTS OF ACCIDENTS: A GENERATION OF IMPACT ON LAW
AND SCHOLARSHIP: THE PECULIAR CHALLENGES POSED BY LATENT DISEASES RESULTING
FROM MASS PRODUCTS, 64 Md. L. Rev. 613 (2005)
64 Md. L. Rev. 613 p.613
840.
CASE NOTE: LIN V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: THE CIRCUITS SPLIT ON THE
ISSUE OF WHETHER MARITAL STATUS IS DISPOSITIVE OF ASYLUM ELIGIBILITY IN THE UNITED
STATES FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO SUFFER PERSECUTION UNDER CHINA'S COERCIVE FAMILY
PLANNING PRACTICES, 59 Me. L. Rev. 169 (2007)
59 Me. L. Rev. 169 p.169
841.
ARTICLE: NEGLIGENCE PER SE THEORIES IN PHARMACEUTICAL & MEDICAL DEVICE
LITIGATION, 57 Me. L. Rev. 51 (2005)
57 Me. L. Rev. 51 p.51
842.
Eleventh Circuit Survay: January 1, 2008 - December 31, 2008: Casenote: Of Two Minds about Plain
Page 87
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
Meaning: The Supreme Court's Interpretation of the Word "Any" in (c), 60 Mercer L. Rev. 1487 (2009)
60 Mercer L. Rev. 1487 p.1487
843.
CASENOTE: New Car Emissions Feared to Increase Global Temperatures, State Standing: Massachusetts
v. EPA, 59 Mercer L. Rev. 1011 (2008)
59 Mercer L. Rev. 1011 p.1011
844.
ARTICLE: REGULATING TARGET MARKETING AND OTHER RACE-BASED ADVERTISING
PRACTICES, 8 Mich. J. Race & L. 335 (2003)
845.
NOTE: Are Artificial Tans the New Cigarette? How Plaintiffs Can Use the Lessons of Tobacco Litigation in
Bringing Claims Against the Indoor Tanning Industry, 107 Mich. L. Rev. 365 (2008)
107 Mich. L. Rev. 365 p.365
846.
ARTICLE: OPTIMAL POLITICAL CONTROL OF THE BUREAUCRACY, 107 Mich. L. Rev. 53 (2008)
107 Mich. L. Rev. 53 p.53
847.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF: TEMPORARY ACCIDENTS? Regulation and Public Interests: The
Possibility of Good Regulatory Government., 106 Mich. L. Rev. 1021 (2008)
106 Mich. L. Rev. 1021 p.1021
848.
NOTE: The Fair Housing Act and Disparate Impact in Homeowners Insurance, 104 Mich. L. Rev. 1993
(2006)
104 Mich. L. Rev. 1993 p.1993
849.
ARTICLE: DISSING CONGRESS, 100 Mich. L. Rev. 80 (2001)
100 Mich. L. Rev. 80 p.80
850.
ARTICLE: COST-BENEFIT DEFAULT PRINCIPLES, 99 Mich. L. Rev. 1651 (2001)
99 Mich. L. Rev. 1651 p.1651
851.
ARTICLE: DEFERENCE AND DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION, 99 Mich. L. Rev. 532 (2000)
99 Mich. L. Rev. 532 p.532
852.
NOTE: The Exclusion of HIV-Positive Immigrants Under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American
Relief Act and the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act, 99 Mich. L. Rev. 452 (2000)
99 Mich. L. Rev. 452 p.452
853.
ARTICLE: CIGARETTE SMOKING AS A PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD: CRAFTING COMMON LAW AND
LEGISLATIVE STRATEGIES FOR ABATEMENT, 11 Mich. St. J. Med. & Law 251 (2007)
854.
ARTICLE: SAFETY, EFFICACY, AND AUTHENTICITY: THE GAP BETWEEN ETHICS AND LAW IN
FDA DECISIONMAKING, 2005 Mich. St. L. Rev. 1135 (2005)
2005 Mich. St. L. Rev. 1135 p.1135
Page 88
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
855.
ARTICLE: THE DO-NOT-CALL REGISTRY TRUMPS COMMERCIAL SPEECH, 2005 Mich. St. L. Rev.
483 (2005)
2005 Mich. St. L. Rev. 483 p.483
856.
Article: Potentially Reduced Exposure Cigarettes: The Need for a Public Health Policy, 8 Minn. J.L. Sci. &
Tech. 127 (2007)
857.
Article: Can Regulation be as Innovative as Science and Technology? The FDA's Regulation of
Combination Products, 6 Minn. J.L. Sci. & Tech. 619 (2005)
858.
COMMENT: The Extent of a Corporation's Ability to Constitute an Original Source Under the False
Claims Act - Minnesota Ass'n of Nurse Anesthetists v. Allina Health System Corp., 97 Minn. L. Rev. 1247
(2003)
859.
ARTICLE: REASON-GIVING AND ACCOUNTABILITY, 93 Minn. L. Rev. 1253 (2009)
93 Minn. L. Rev. 1253 p.1253
860.
ARTICLE: The Need for Mead: Rejecting Tax Exceptionalism in Judicial Deference, 90 Minn. L. Rev. 1537
(2006)
90 Minn. L. Rev. 1537 p.1537
861.
ARTICLE: Seeking Truth for Power: Informational Strategy and Regulatory Policymaking, 89 Minn. L.
Rev. 277 (2004)
89 Minn. L. Rev. 277 p.277
862.
CORRESPONDENCE: A Vision Softly Creeping: Congressional Acquiescence and the Dormant Commerce
Clause, 88 Minn. L. Rev. 1764 (2004)
88 Minn. L. Rev. 1764 p.1764
863.
87 Minn. L. Rev. 1247, 87 Minn. L. Rev. 1247
87 Minn. L. Rev. 1247 p.1247
864.
NOTE: A NEW ERA OF GREEN REGULATION: EPA MUST REGULATE CLIMATE ALTERING GASES
EMITTED FROM MOTOR VEHICLES, 15 Mo. Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 369 (2008)
865.
COMMENT: How Much would You Pay for Clean Air? The Role of Cost/Benefit Analysis in Setting
NAAQS, 9 Mo. Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 44 (2002)
866.
ARTICLE: Compacts, Cartels, and Congressional Consent, 68 Mo. L. Rev. 285 (2003)
68 Mo. L. Rev. 285 p.285
867.
KENTUCKY SURVEY ISSUE: SURVEY: A Survey of Kentucky Environmental Law, 29 N. Ky. L. Rev. 1
(2002)
868.
ARTICLE: LIGHTING UP THE FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT: A CASE STUDY OF U.S.
TOBACCO INDUSTRY POLITICAL INFLUENCE BUYING IN JAPAN, 34 N.C.J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 471
(2009)
Page 89
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
869.
COMMENT: Throw Another Cloned Steak on the Barbie: Examining the FDA's Lack of Authority to Impose
Mandatory Labeling Requirements for Cloned Beef, 8 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 303 (2007)
870.
ARTICLE: GUN TORTS: DEFINING A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VICTIMS IN SUITS AGAINST GUN
MANUFACTURERS, 81 N.C. L. Rev. 115 (2002)
81 N.C. L. Rev. 115 p.115
871.
ARTICLE: HECK V. HUMPHREY AFTER SPENCER V. KEMNA, 28 N.E. J. on Crim. & Civ. Con. 1
(2002)
872.
ARTICLE: PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTION AND THE COMMERCE CLAUSE: CONTROLLING
TOBACCO IN THE INTERNET AGE*, 35 N.M. L. Rev. 81 (2005)
35 N.M. L. Rev. 81 p.81
873.
COMMENT: Zaranska v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 52 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 659 (2007)
52 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 659 p.659
874.
ARTICLE: THE UNINTELLIGIBLE STANDARD: RETHINKING THE MANDATE OF THE FTC FROM A
NONDELEGATION PERSPECTIVE, 57 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 361 (2000)
875.
ARTICLE: THE TRAIL SMELTER: IS WHAT'S PAST PROLOGUE? EPA BLAZES A NEW TRAIL FOR
CERCLA, 14 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 233 (2006)
876.
STUDENT ARTICLE: CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND THE CLEAN AIR
ACT: AN ANALYSIS OF WHETHER CARBON DIOXIDE SHOULD BE LISTED AS A CRITERIA
POLLUTANT, 13 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 298 (2005)
877.
STUDENT ESSAY COMPETITION: RUNNER-UP: IN SEARCH OF THE INSTITUTION IN
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: THE FAILURE OF THE SMALL BUSINESS LIABILITY RELIEF AND
BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION ACT OF 2002 AND THE NEED FOR FEDERAL LEGISLATION, 12
N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 946 (2005)
878.
RECENT DEVELOPMENT: ENFORCING THE FAIR HOUSING ACT: CAN AGENCY
INTERPRETATIONS OVERRIDE CONGRESSIONAL INTENT IN ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
LEGISLATION?, 9 N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub. Pol'y 535 (2005)
879.
SYMPOSIUM: TEACHING LEGISLATION: A CONVERSATION: CONVERSATION, 7 N.Y.U. J. Legis. &
Pub. Pol'y 43 (2003)
880.
ARTICLE: CHOOSING INTERPRETIVE METHODS: A POSITIVE THEORY OF JUDGES AND
EVERYONE ELSE, 83 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 769 (2008)
83 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 769 p.769
881.
NOTE: MIDNIGHT REGULATIONS, JUDICIAL REVIEW, AND THE FORMAL LIMITS OF
PRESIDENTIAL RULEMAKING, 78 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 782 (2003)
78 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 782 p.782
882.
ARTICLE: AGENCY BURROWING: ENTRENCHING POLICIES AND PERSONNEL BEFORE A NEW
PRESIDENT ARRIVES, 78 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 557 (2003)
Page 90
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
78 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 557 p.557
883.
NOTE: FREE SPEECH AND THE NLRB'S LABORATORY CONDITIONS DOCTRINE, 77 N.Y.U. L. Rev.
204 (2002)
77 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 204 p.204
884.
ARTICLE: FEDERAL COMMON LAW, COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM, AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF
THE TELECOM ACT, 76 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1692 (2001)
76 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1692 p.1692
885.
ARTICLE: United States Supreme Court Rules EPA Must Take Action on Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
Massachusetts v. EPA, 47 Nat. Resources J. 793 (2007)
47 Nat. Resources J. 793 p.793
886.
ARTICLE: Towards Common Sense in ESA Enforcement: Federal Courts and the Limits on Administrative
Authority and Discretion under the Endangered Species Act, 44 Nat. Resources J. 77 (2004)
44 Nat. Resources J. 77 p.77
887.
NOTE: A COMPREHENSIVE NATIONAL POLICY TO STOP HUMAN CLONING: AN ANALYSIS OF
THE HUMAN CLONING PROHIBITION ACT OF 2001 WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FEDERAL
AND STATE LEGISLATURES, 17 ND J. L. Ethics & Pub Pol'y 217 (2003)
888.
COLUMNS: PROFESSOR'S CORNER: ARE LAWYERS SUBJECT TO THE GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY
PRIVACY RULES?, 11 Nev. Law. 26 (2003)
889.
COMMENT: LPA, Inc. v. Herman's* Unanswered Question: Is the Clinton Administration's Birth and
Adoption Unemployment Compensation Regulation Consistent with the Federal Unemployment Tax Act?,
37 New Eng. L. Rev. 63 (2002)
890.
SYMPOSIUM: SEPARATION OF POWERS AS A SAFEGUARD OF FEDERALISM: ARTICLE: THE
PERILS OF THEORY, 83 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1567 (2008)
83 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1567 p.1567
891.
NOTE: TO PROMOTE PROFIT IN SCIENCE AND THE USEFUL ARTS: THE BROADCAST FLAG, FCC
JURISDICTION, AND COPYRIGHT IMPLICATIONS, 80 Notre Dame L. Rev. 439 (2004)
80 Notre Dame L. Rev. 439 p.439
892.
ARTICLE: THE SOCIAL CONTEXT VARIABLE IN HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT LITIGATION, 77 Notre
Dame L. Rev. 437 (2002)
77 Notre Dame L. Rev. 437 p.437
893.
NOTE: UP IN SMOKE: HOW THE PROXIMATE CAUSE BATTLE EXTINGUISHED THE TOBACCO
WAR, 76 Notre Dame L. Rev. 257 (2000)
76 Notre Dame L. Rev. 257 p.257
894.
Article: CONTINUITY, COHERENCE, AND THE CANONS, 99 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1389 (2005)
Page 91
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
99 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1389 p.1389
895.
SYMPOSIUM: THE REHNQUIST COURT: THE REHNQUIST COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 99
Nw. U.L. Rev. 297 (2004)
99 Nw. U.L. Rev. 297 p.297
896.
ARTICLE: REEXAMINING MARBURY IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE: A STRUCTURAL AND
INSTITUTIONAL DEFENSE OF JUDICIAL POWER OVER STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, 96 Nw.
U.L. Rev. 1239 (2002)
96 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1239 p.1239
897.
LEAD ARTICLE: Rethinking Federal Review of Telecommunications Mergers, 28 Ohio N.U.L. Rev. 747
(2002)
28 Ohio N.U.L. Rev. 747 p.747
898.
NOTE: Psychoactive Substances, Dietary Supplements, and the War on "Drugs": Law, Myth, and Tradition
as the Social Control of Consciousness, 66 Ohio St. L.J. 1311 (2005)
66 Ohio St. L.J. 1311 p.1311
899.
ARTICLE: Judicial Deference, Agency Commitment, and Force of Law, 66 Ohio St. L.J. 1013 (2005)
66 Ohio St. L.J. 1013 p.1013
900.
LAW SCHOOL NEWS: REPLY TO JUDGE EASTERBROOK: JUDICIAL DISCRETION AND STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION, 57 Okla. L. Rev. 31 (2004)
57 Okla. L. Rev. 31 p.31
901.
COMMENT: Environmental Law: The Environmental Quality Act as a Reservoir of Legislative Intent - A
New Model of Interagency Cooperation Springs Forth from the Clarification of Oklahoma's Groundwater
Law, 55 Okla. L. Rev. 417 (2002)
55 Okla. L. Rev. 417 p.417
902.
COMMENT: Pre-Enforcement Ripeness Doctrine: The Fitness of Hardship, 80 Or. L. Rev. 1107 (2001)
80 Or. L. Rev. 1107 p.1107
903.
ARTICLE: The Logic of Legal Conflict: The Perplexing Combination of Formalism and Anti-Formalism in
Adjudication of Conflicting Legal Norms, 80 Or. L. Rev. 447 (2001)
80 Or. L. Rev. 447 p.447
904.
FEATURE: CIVIL DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT: THE 1999-2000 TERM,
42 Orange County Lawyer 28 (2000)
905.
Comment: In Search of a Cause: Addressing the Confusion in Proving Causation of a Public Nuisance, 26
Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 225 (2009)
906.
Article: Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency: Checks and Balances in Disarray, 17 Penn St.
Page 92
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
Envtl. L. Rev. 329 (2009)
907.
Article: Splitting Genes: The Future of Genetically Modified Organisms in the Wake of the WTO/Cartagena
Standoff, 16 Penn St. Envtl. L. Rev. 367 (2008)
908.
INTRODUCTION: Laboratories for Local Solutions for Global Problems: State, Local and Private
Leadership in Developing Strategies to Mitigate the Causes and Effects of Climate Change, 12 Penn St.
Envtl. L. Rev. 15 (2004)
909.
COMMENT: Protecting the "Rainforests of the Sea': Creating the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral
Reef Ecosystem Reserve by Executive Order, 11 Penn St. Envtl. L. Rev. 273 (2003)
910.
Comment: Government Tan Lines: Examining the Reach and Effectiveness of Federal and State Efforts to
Protect Consumers from the Dangers of Indoor Tanning, 36 Pepp. L. Rev. 1161 (2009)
36 Pepp. L. Rev. 1161 p.1161
911.
ARTICLE: Conflicting Currents: The Obligation to Maintain Inviolate Client Confidences and the New SEC
Attorney Conduct Rules, 32 Pepp. L. Rev. 89 (2004)
32 Pepp. L. Rev. 89 p.89
912.
NOTE: United States v. Mead Corp.: Will Administrative Transparency Survive the Increasing Demand for
National Security?, 30 Pepp. L. Rev. 725 (2003)
30 Pepp. L. Rev. 725 p.725
913.
ARTICLE: Swing Votes on the Current Supreme Court: The Joint Opinion in Casey and Its Progeny, 29
Pepp. L. Rev. 637 (2002)
29 Pepp. L. Rev. 637 p.637
914.
ARTICLE: Protecting Private Intellectual Property from Government Intrusion: Revisiting SmithKline and
the Case for Just Compensation, 29 Pepp. L. Rev. 435 (2002)
29 Pepp. L. Rev. 435 p.435
915.
RESPONSE: Professor Erwin Chemerinsky's Response, 28 Pepp. L. Rev. 779 (2001)
28 Pepp. L. Rev. 779 p.779
916.
PRESENTATION: Federalism and Preemption in October Term 1999, 28 Pepp. L. Rev. 757 (2001)
28 Pepp. L. Rev. 757 p.757
917.
RESPONSE: Dean Jonathan D. Varat's Response, 28 Pepp. L. Rev. 633 (2001)
28 Pepp. L. Rev. 633 p.633
918.
RESPONSE: Dean Kathleen M. Sullivan's Response, 28 Pepp. L. Rev. 589 (2001)
28 Pepp. L. Rev. 589 p.589
919.
ARTICLE: Rediscovering a Principled Commerce Power, 28 Pepp. L. Rev. 547 (2001)
28 Pepp. L. Rev. 547 p.547
Page 93
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
920.
ARTICLE: Law Enforcement and Criminal Law Decisions, 28 Pepp. L. Rev. 517 (2001)
28 Pepp. L. Rev. 517 p.517
921.
Introduction, 28 Pepp. L. Rev. 513 (2001)
28 Pepp. L. Rev. 513 p.513
922.
ARTICLE: A Legal Prescription for Bioethical Ills+, 21 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 183 (2002)
923.
SYMPOSIUM ON IDEOLOGY IN JUDICIAL SELECTION: Winners and Losers Versus How you Play the
Game: Should Ideology Drive Judicial Selection?, 15 Regent U.L. Rev. 1 (2002)
924.
ARTICLE: Conservative Activism on the Rehnquist Court: Federal Preemption is No Longer a Liberal
Issue, 9 Roger Williams U. L. Rev. 129 (2003)
925.
ARTICLE: CAN THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGULATE CARBON DIOXIDE
EMISSIONS FROM MOTOR VEHICLES UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT? -- PENDING ISSUES BEFORE
THE HIGH COURT+, 31 Rutgers L. Rec. 25 (2007)
926.
ARTICLE: Rights Are a Seamless Web, 26 Rutgers L. Rec. 5 (2002)
927.
ARTICLE: Judicial Review of Negotiated Rulemaking: Should Chevron Deference Apply?, 52 Rutgers L.
Rev. 1069 (2000)
52 Rutgers L. Rev. 1069 p.1069
928.
ARTICLE: HOW COURTS CAN PROTECT STATE AUTONOMY FROM FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE
ENCROACHMENT, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 45 (2008)
82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 45 p.45
929.
ARTICLE: THE OTHER DELEGATE: JUDICIALLY ADMINISTERED STATUTES AND THE
NONDELEGATION DOCTRINE, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 405 (2008)
81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 405 p.405
930.
NOTE: JUDICIAL DEFERENCE TO AGENCY INTERPRETATIONS OF JURISDICTION AFTER MEAD,
78 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1327 (2005)
78 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1327 p.1327
931.
ARTICLE: THE REHNQUIST COURT, STRUCTURAL DUE PROCESS, AND SEMISUBSTANTIVE
CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW, 75 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1281 (2002)
75 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1281 p.1281
932.
ARTICLE: "WHAT SHALL WE DO WITH THE DRUNKEN SAILOR?": THE INTERSECTION OF THE
TAKINGS CLAUSE AND THE CHARACTER, MERIT, OR IMPROPRIETY OF REGULATORY ACTION,
17 Southeastern Envtl. L.J. 1 (2008)
933.
ARTICLES: CONGRESSIONAL ADMINISTRATION, 43 San Diego L. Rev. 61 (2006)
43 San Diego L. Rev. 61 p.61
Page 94
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
934.
ARTICLE: TRUMPS, INVERSIONS, BALANCING, PRESUMPTIONS, INSTITUTION PROMPTING, AND
INTERPRETIVE CANONS: NEW WAYS FOR ADJUDICATING CONFLICTS BETWEEN LEGAL NORMS,
45 Santa Clara L. Rev. 233 (2005)
45 Santa Clara L. Rev. 233 p.233
935.
ARTICLE: Beyond Chevron's Domain: Agency Interpretations of Statutory Procedural Provisions, 30
Seattle Univ. L. R. 541 (2007)
936.
ARTICLE: "Merchants of Discontent": An Exploration of the Psychology of Advertising, Addiction, and the
Implications for Commercial Speech, 25 Seattle Univ. L. R. 377 (2001)
937.
CASEBOOK REVIEW: The Wide World of Torts: Reviewing Franklin & Rabin's Tort Law and Alternatives,
25 Seattle Univ. L. R. 1 (2001)
938.
ARTICLE: The Continuing Tobacco War: State and Local Tobacco Control in Washington, 23 Seattle Univ.
L. R. 1097 (2000)
939.
SYMPOSIUM: FEDERALISM: THE BATTLE RECOMMENCES: SPLITTING THE ATOM OF
MARSHALL'S WISDOM, 16 St. John's J.L. Comm. 371 (2002)
940.
ARTICLE: THE LEGAL AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
TO REGULATE TOBACCO: CALLING ON CONGRESS, 74 St. John's L. Rev. 63 (2000)
74 St. John's L. Rev. 63 p.63
941.
COMMENT: FAT AMERICA: THE NEED FOR REGULATION UNDER THE FOOD, DRUG, AND
COSMETIC ACT, 49 St. Louis U. L.J. 209 (2004)
49 St. Louis U. L.J. 209 p.209
942.
SYMPOSIUM: SOME OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE TURN TOWARD FEDERAL RULEMAKING IN
HEALTH LAW, 49 St. Louis U. L.J. 141 (2004)
49 St. Louis U. L.J. 141 p.141
943.
SYMPOSIUM: FDA AND THE ADAPTATION OF REGULATORY MODELS, 49 St. Louis U. L.J. 131
(2004)
49 St. Louis U. L.J. 131 p.131
944.
SYMPOSIUM: THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION AND THE COMMAND-AND-CONTROL
MODEL OF REGULATION, 49 St. Louis U. L.J. 105 (2004)
49 St. Louis U. L.J. 105 p.105
945.
SYMPOSIUM: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW MEETS HEALTH LAW: INEXTRICABLE PAIRING OR
MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE?, 49 St. Louis U. L.J. 35 (2004)
49 St. Louis U. L.J. 35 p.35
946.
NOTE: FLOURISHING FORTIES AGAINST FLAMING FIFTIES: IS REVERSE AGE DISCRIMINATION
ACTIONABLE UNDER THE AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT? n1, 48 St. Louis U. L.J.
Page 95
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
225 (2003)
48 St. Louis U. L.J. 225 p.225
947.
ARTICLE: FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION v. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE PORTS AUTHORITY:
SMALL ICEBERG OR JUST THE TIP?, 47 St. Louis U. L.J. 971 (2003)
47 St. Louis U. L.J. 971 p.971
948.
RESPONDENT: REHNQUIST'S COURT, 47 St. Louis U. L.J. 861 (2003)
47 St. Louis U. L.J. 861 p.861
949.
CHILDRESS LECTURE: THE MAKING OF THE SECOND REHNQUIST COURT: A PRELIMINARY
ANALYSIS, 47 St. Louis U. L.J. 569 (2003)
47 St. Louis U. L.J. 569 p.569
950.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FROM A PRACTITIONER'S PERSPECIVE:
PRIOR USER RIGHTS FOR BUSINESS METHOD PATENTS, 20 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 245 (2001)
951.
ARTICLE: THE ALIEN TORT CLAIMS ACT: THEORETICAL AND HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS OF
THE ALIEN TORT CLAIMS ACT AND ITS DISCONTENTS: A REALITY CHECK, 16 St. Thomas L. Rev.
585 (2004)
952.
FEATURE: The Investment Company Act's Definition of "Security" and the Myth of Equivalence, 7 Stan.
J.L. Bus. & Fin. 1 (2001)
953.
SYMPOSIUM: HEALTH CARE IN AMERICA: A NEW GENERATION OF CHALLENGES: A Drug by Any
Other Name ... ?: Paradoxes in Dietary Supplement Risk Regulation, 17 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev 165 (2006)
954.
SYMPOSIUM: GLOBAL CONSTITUTIONALISM: NATIONAL SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL
PROTECTION: Equality in the War on Terror, 59 Stan. L. Rev. 1365 (2007)
59 Stan. L. Rev. 1365 p.1365
955.
SYMPOSIUM: Looking Backward, Looking Forward: The Legacy of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice
O'Connor: SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE: Problems with Minimalism, 58 Stan. L. Rev. 1899 (2006)
58 Stan. L. Rev. 1899 p.1899
956.
ARTICLE: Takings, Trade Secrets, and Tobacco: Mountain or Molehill?, 53 Stan. L. Rev. 447 (2000)
53 Stan. L. Rev. 447 p.447
957.
STUDENT NOTE: FUELING THE HEATED DEBATE OVER GLOBAL WARMING: WHY FLORIDA
SHOULD FOLLOW CALIFORNIA'S LEAD IN ENACTING A MANDATORY CAP-AND-TRADE
PROGRAM FOR GREENHOUSE GASES, 38 Stetson L. Rev. 163 (2008)
38 Stetson L. Rev. 163 p.163
958.
SYMPOSIUM--THE ROBERTS COURT: A NEW JURISPRUDENTIAL ERA?: The New Federalization
Movement and the Roberts Court, 42 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 77 (2008)
42 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 77 p.77
Page 96
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
959.
CASE COMMENT: Administrative Law - FDA's Authority to Regulate Tobacco up in Smoke, 35 Suffolk U.
L. Rev. 437 (2001)
35 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 437 p.437
960.
ARTICLE: MASSACHUSETTS v EPA: ESCAPING THE COMMON LAW'S GROWING SHADOW, 2007
Sup. Ct. Rev. 111 (2007)
961.
ARTICLE: MASSACHUSETTS v EPA: FROM POLITICS TO EXPERTISE, 2007 Sup. Ct. Rev. 51 (2007)
962.
ARTICLE: OVERLAPPING AND UNDERLAPPING JURISDICTION IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 2006
Sup. Ct. Rev. 201 (2006)
963.
ARTICLE: The Supreme Court's Judicial Passivity, 2002 Sup. Ct. Rev. 343 (2002)
964.
ARTICLE: The Nondelegation Doctrine as a Canon of Avoidance, 2000 Sup. Ct. Rev. 223 (2000)
965.
CASENOTE: CUNNINGHAM V. FLEETWOOD HOMES OF GEORGIA, INC. n1: WILL CONSUMERS BE
REQUIRED TO ARBITRATE THEIR MAGNUSON-MOSS CLAIMS?, 19 T.M. Cooley L. Rev. 361 (2002)
966.
COMMENT: The Statutory Limits of Compassion: Can Treatment INDs Provide Meaningful Access to
Investigational Drugs for the Terminally Ill?, 27 Temp. J. Sci. Tech. & Envtl. L. 79 (2008)
967.
ARTICLE: OVERLOOKED TEMPORAL ISSUES IN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, 81 Temp. L. Rev.
635 (2008)
81 Temp. L. Rev. 635 p.635
968.
COMMENT: THE FDA'S RECENT ABOUT-FACE: PLAN B AGE RESTRICTION IS UNLAWFUL
RULEMAKING AND VIOLATES MINORS' DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, 81 Temp. L. Rev. 303 (2008)
81 Temp. L. Rev. 303 p.303
969.
ARTICLE: CONSTRUING THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT: THE NLRB AND METHODS OF
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, 81 Temp. L. Rev. 177 (2008)
81 Temp. L. Rev. 177 p.177
970.
ARTICLE: AMERICAN LAW AND THE PROBLEM OF COERCED PROVISION OF SUPPORT TO A
TERRORIST ORGANIZATION AS GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL, 17 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 173
(2007)
971.
SYMPOSIUM THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT -- PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE:
DEVELOPING LAW OVER A DECADE: REPORTS OF ITS DEATH WERE GREATLY EXAGGERATED:
THE EEOC REGULATIONS THAT DEFINE "DISABILITY" UNDER THE ADA AFTER SUTTON v.
UNITED AIR LINES, 9 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 253 (2000)
972.
ARTICLE: SHERMAN'S MARCH (IN)TO THE SEA, 74 Tenn. L. Rev. 319 (2007)
74 Tenn. L. Rev. 319 p.319
973.
COMMENT: Is it Time to Give Congressional Delegation a New Filter?, 69 Tenn. L. Rev. 485 (2002)
69 Tenn. L. Rev. 485 p.485
Page 97
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
974.
Article: Poaching Profits: An Examination of the Ability of a Trademark Owner to Recover an Infringer's
Profits Under the Lanham Act as Amended in 1999, 16 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 257 (2008)
975.
Book Review Essay: Law and Governance in the 21st Century Regulatory State Law, 86 Tex. L. Rev. 819
(2008)
86 Tex. L. Rev. 819 p.819
976.
Article: The Polymorphic Principle and the Judicial Role in Statutory Interpretation, 84 Tex. L. Rev. 339
(2005)
84 Tex. L. Rev. 339 p.339
977.
ARTICLE: The Congressional Competition to Control Delegated Power, 81 Tex. L. Rev. 1443 (2003)
81 Tex. L. Rev. 1443 p.1443
978.
NOTE: Legigation+, 79 Tex. L. Rev. 1727 (2001)
79 Tex. L. Rev. 1727 p.1727
979.
ARTICLE: Separation of Powers as a Safeguard of Federalism, 79 Tex. L. Rev. 1321 (2001)
79 Tex. L. Rev. 1321 p.1321
980.
ARTICLE: Class Action Lawmaking: An Administrative Law Model, 11 Tex. Rev. Law & Pol. 39 (2006)
981.
ARTICLE: The Search for an Intelligible Principle: Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Nondelegation Doctrine,
5 Tex. Rev. Law & Pol. 1 (2000)
982.
ARTICLE: From Least Dangerous Branch to Most Profound Legacy: The High Stakes in Judicial Selection,
4 Tex. Rev. Law & Pol. 365 (2000)
983.
COMMENT: Federal Courts Do the Two-Step While Texas Dances to a Different Tune: Judicial Review of
Agency Rulemaking, 2 Tex. Tech J. Tex. Admin. L. 299 (2001)
984.
COMMENT: REMOVING MUD IN THE CLEAN WATER ACT: THE NINTH AMENDMENT AS A
LIMITING FACTOR IN CHEVRON ANALYSIS, 14 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 51 (2007)
985.
THE SUPREME COURT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW: THE 1999-2000 TERM: Discrimination and
Business Regulation, 17 Touro L. Rev. 249 (2000)
986.
97 Trademark Rep. 811, 97 Trademark Rep. 811
97 Trademark Rep. 811 p.838
987.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW: I. CLEAN AIR ACT, 21 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 171
(2007)
988.
NOTE: Massachusetts v. EPA: The D.C. Circuit Stretches Precedent and Ignores the Statutory Standard to
Uphold EPA's Unlawful Rulemaking Petition Denial, 20 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 207 (2006)
989.
ARTICLE: The Stevens/Scalia Principle and Why It Matters: Statutory Conversations and a Cultural
Critical Critique of the Strict Plain Meaning Approach, 79 Tul. L. Rev. 955 (2005)
Page 98
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
79 Tul. L. Rev. 955 p.955
990.
ESSAY: What's Wrong with "Constitutionalizing Food and Drug Law"?, 75 Tul. L. Rev. 137 (2000)
75 Tul. L. Rev. 137 p.137
991.
SYMPOSIUM: 1999-2000 SUPREME COURT REVIEW: PRIVATE SECTOR ISSUES IN A PUBLIC
SECTOR RETRO-LUTION: THE SUPREME COURT's BUSINESS-RELATED DECISIONS IN THE
OCTOBER 1999 TERM, 36 Tulsa L.J. 153 (2000)
992.
SYMPOSIUM: 1999-2000 SUPREME COURT REVIEW: INTRODUCTION, 36 Tulsa L.J. 1 (2000)
993.
SYMPOSIUM: SUPREME COURT REVIEW: AVOIDING DEFERENCE QUESTIONS, 44 Tulsa L. Rev.
557 (2009)
44 Tulsa L. Rev. 557 p.557
994.
SYMPOSIUM: 2001-2002 SUPREME COURT REVIEW: THE WAR ON THE POOR - NEWS FROM THE
FRONT: DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT V. RUCKER(c), 38 Tulsa L. Rev.
385 (2002)
38 Tulsa L. Rev. 385 p.385
995.
SYMPOSIUM: 2000-2001 SUPREME COURT REVIEW: "BY THE DAWN'S EARLY LIGHT:" THE
ADMINISTRATIVE STATE STILL STANDS AFTER THE 2000 SUPREME COURT TERM (COMMERCE
CLAUSE, DELEGATION, AND TAKINGS), 37 Tulsa L. Rev. 205 (2001)
37 Tulsa L. Rev. 205 p.205
996.
RECENT DEVELOPMENT: FRIENDS OF THE EARTH V. E.P.A.: THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HELD THAT CALCULATING TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY
LOADS FOR POLLUTANTS IN THE ANACOSTIA RIVER ON A SEASONAL AND YEARLY BASIS DOES
NOT VIOLATE THE CLEAN WATER ACT, 12 U. Balt. J. Envtl. L. 191 (2005)
997.
Article: "Securing" the Nation: Law, Politics, and Organization at the Federal Security Agency, 1939-1953,
76 U. Chi. L. Rev. 587 (2009)
76 U. Chi. L. Rev. 587 p.587
998.
REVIEW: Statutory Interpretation and Decision Theory: Judging under Uncertainty: An Institutional
Theory of Legal Interpretation, Adrian Vermeule, 74 U. Chi. L. Rev. 329 (2007)
74 U. Chi. L. Rev. 329 p.329
999.
ARTICLE: Do Judges Make Regulatory Policy? An Empirical Investigation of Chevron, 73 U. Chi. L. Rev.
823 (2006)
73 U. Chi. L. Rev. 823 p.823
1000.
ARTICLE: Originalism and Interpretive Conventions, 70 U. Chi. L. Rev. 519 (2003)
70 U. Chi. L. Rev. 519 p.519
1001.
ARTICLE: Interring the Nondelegation Doctrine, 69 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1721 (2002)
Page 99
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
69 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1721 p.1721
1002.
COMMENT: Arbitrating Consumer Claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 68 U. Chi. L. Rev.
1459 (2001)
68 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1459 p.1459
1003.
COMMENT AND CASENOTE: FIGHTING FOR FETAL RIGHTS AT THE EXPENSE OF WOMEN'S
HEALTH: THE REDEFINITION OF "CHILD" UNDER THE STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE
PROGRAM, 73 U. Cin. L. Rev. 319 (2004)
73 U. Cin. L. Rev. 319 p.319
1004.
KEEPING THE SAVING CLAUSE SAFE FROM JUDICIAL ANNIHILATION: THE STATUS OF ERISA
PREEMPTION JURISPRUDENCE FOLLOWING MORAN V. RUSH PRUDENTIAL HMO, INC., 71 U.
Cin. L. Rev. 611 (2003)
71 U. Cin. L. Rev. 611 p.611
1005.
ARE TITLE VI'S DISPARATE IMPACT REGULATIONS VALID?, 71 U. Cin. L. Rev. 517 (2003)
71 U. Cin. L. Rev. 517 p.517
1006.
COMMENT: CURING THE LEGAL DEFICIENCIES OF PROPOSED STATE AND FEDERAL
PRESCRIPTION DRUG DISCOUNT PROGRAMS, 70 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1341 (2002)
70 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1341 p.1341
1007.
Article: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF JUDICIAL DECISIONMAKING, STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION, AND THE CHEVRON DOCTRINE IN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, 79 U. Colo. L. Rev.
767 (2008)
79 U. Colo. L. Rev. 767 p.767
1008.
COMMENT AND CASENOTE: AN END TO FEDERAL FUNDING OF FOR-PROFIT CHARTER
SCHOOLS?, 79 U. Colo. L. Rev. 617 (2008)
79 U. Colo. L. Rev. 617 p.617
1009.
ARTICLE: THE DIVERGENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, 75 U.
Colo. L. Rev. 1 (2004)
75 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1 p.1
1010.
ARTICLE: DO LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES DIFFER IN JUDICIAL ACTIVISM?, 73 U. Colo. L.
Rev. 1401 (2002)
73 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1401 p.1401
1011.
ENACTING AND INTERPRETING STATUTES IN THE CONSTITUTION'S SHADOWS SYMPOSIUM:
INTERPRETING AND ENACTING STATUTES IN THE CONSTITUTION'S SHADOWS: AN
INTRODUCTION, 32 U. Dayton L. Rev. 307 (2007)
32 U. Dayton L. Rev. 307 p.307
Page 100
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1012.
SYMPOSIUM: TO WHAT EXTENT SHOULD THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF
PROVISIONS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION BE INFORMED BY RULINGS OF FOREIGN AND
INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS: Peeking Abroad?: The Supreme Court's Use of Foreign Precedents in
Constitutional Cases, 26 U. Haw. L. Rev. 385 (2004)
26 U. Haw. L. Rev. 385 p.385
1013.
NOTE: SPILLAGE FROM THE FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH: THE REGULATION OF PROSPECTIVE
ANTI-AGING MOLECULAR AND GENETIC THERAPIES, 2006 U. Ill. J.L. Tech. & Pol'y 159 (2006)
1014.
ARTICLE: BOOTLEGGERS, BAPTISTS & TELEVANGELISTS: REGULATING TOBACCO BY
LITIGATION, 2008 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1225 (2008)
2008 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1225 p.1225
1015.
ARTICLE: Breaking Free of Chevron's Constraints: Zuni Public School District No. 89 v. U.S. Department
of Education, 56 U. Kan. L. Rev. 147 (2007)
56 U. Kan. L. Rev. 147 p.147
1016.
SYMPOSIUM: THE FUTURE OF UNENUMERATED RIGHTS: PART TWO OF THREE: COMMENT:
"THE WAR OF INFORMATION": THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT, HAMDAN V.
RUMSFELD, AND THE PRESIDENT'S WARRANTLESS-WIRETAPPING PROGRAM, 9 U. Pa. J. Const. L.
291 (2006)
1017.
COMMENT: FEDERAL JUDGES AND FEARING THE "FLOODGATES OF LITIGATION", 6 U. Pa. J.
Const. L. 377 (2003)
1018.
COMMENT: FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES: WHAT COLLECTIVE INTENTION TELLS US
ABOUT CONGRESS AND STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, 154 U. Pa. L. Rev. 983 (2006)
154 U. Pa. L. Rev. 983 p.983
1019.
ARTICLE: THE POSITIVE POLITICAL THEORY OF LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: NEW PERSPECTIVES
ON THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT AND ITS INTERPRETATION, 151 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1417 (2003)
151 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1417 p.1417
1020.
ARTICLE: THE ONE-CONGRESS FICTION IN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, 149 U. Pa. L. Rev. 171
(2000)
149 U. Pa. L. Rev. 171 p.171
1021.
LOOSE CANONS: STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION AND THE NEW NONDELEGATION DOCTRINE, 64
U. Pitt. L. Rev. 1 (2002)
64 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 1 p.1
1022.
ARTICLE: BALANCING PUBLIC HEALTH AGAINST INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY: THE ETHICS OF
SMOKING REGULATIONS, 61 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 419 (2000)
61 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 419 p.419
1023.
SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE: ALLEN CHAIR SYMPOSIUM 2001: LAWYER ADVERTISING AND THE
Page 101
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
PHILOSOPHICAL ORIGINS OF THE COMMERCIAL SPEECH DOCTRINE, 36 U. Rich. L. Rev. 91
(2002)
36 U. Rich. L. Rev. 91 p.91
1024.
NOTE: SOLOMON v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP.: THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT THROWS OUT THE 112,
P 2 "REGARDS" CLAUSE WITH INVENTOR LITIGATION TESTIMONY, 32 U. Tol. L. Rev. 407 (2001)
32 U. Tol. L. Rev. 407 p.407
1025.
COMMENT: Judicial Review Under (a)(2)(B)(ii): How a Minority of Federal Circuit Courts Are Keeping
Non-Citizens Out of Court, 40 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1515 (2007)
40 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1515 p.1515
1026.
COMMENT: The Fundamental (Un)Fairness of Foreign Convictions as Predicate Felonies, 38 U.C. Davis
L. Rev. 1317 (2005)
38 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1317 p.1317
1027.
NOTE: HUD v. Rucker, Unconscionable Due Process for Public Housing Tenants, 37 U.C. Davis L. Rev.
1175 (2004)
37 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1175 p.1175
1028.
SYMPOSIUM: SHAPING THE FUTURE: WHAT OUR DECISIONS TODAY MEAN FOR TOMORROW:
PANEL: Federalism, Preemption, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 37 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 281 (2003)
37 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 281 p.281
1029.
ARTICLE: The Unwilling Listener: Hill v. Colorado's Chilling Effect on Unorthodox Speech, 35 U.C. Davis
L. Rev. 387 (2002)
35 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 387 p.387
1030.
ARTICLE: Shoring Up Chevron: A Defense of Seminole Rock Deference to Agency Regulatory
Interpretations, 34 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 49 (2000)
1031.
SYMPOSIUM: THE DOMESTIC RESPONSE TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE: FEDERAL, STATE, AND
LITIGATION INITIATIVES: ARTICLE: Climate Change and the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.F. L. Rev. 111
(2007)
42 U.S.F. L. Rev. 111 p.111
1032.
ARTICLE: Untangling the Web: Legal and Policy Tools to Restrict Online Cigar Advertisement, 35 U.S.F.
L. Rev. 1 (2000)
1033.
ARTICLE: Fiduciary Foundations of Administrative Law, 54 UCLA L. Rev. 117 (2006)
54 UCLA L. Rev. 117 p.117
1034.
ARTICLE: The Fable of the Nationalist President and the Parochial Congress, 53 UCLA L. Rev. 1217
(2006)
1035.
COMMENT & NOTE: When Is the Unmarried Partner of an Alien Who Has Been Forcibly Subjected to
Page 102
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
Abortion or Sterilization a "Spouse" for the Purpose of Asylum Eligibility? The Diverging Opinions of Ma v.
Ashcroft and Chen v. Ashcroft, 2005 Utah L. Rev. 1021 (2005)
2005 Utah L. Rev. 1021 p.1021
1036.
ARTICLE: SHIFTING SCIENCE, CONSIDERED COSTS, AND STATIC STATUTES: THE
INTERPRETATION OF EXPANSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION, 24 Va. Envtl. L.J. 395 (2006)
1037.
ESSAY: CHEVRON HAS ONLY ONE STEP*, 95 Va. L. Rev. 597 (2009)
95 Va. L. Rev. 597 p.597
1038.
ARTICLE: OVERVALUING UNIFORMITY, 94 Va. L. Rev. 1567 (2008)
94 Va. L. Rev. 1567 p.1567
1039.
ARTICLE: AMBIVALENCE ABOUT FORMALISM, 93 Va. L. Rev. 1 (2007)
93 Va. L. Rev. 1 p.1
1040.
ARTICLE: CHEVRON STEP ZERO, 92 Va. L. Rev. 187 (2006)
92 Va. L. Rev. 187 p.187
1041.
ARTICLE: PUBLIC REGULATION OF PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT: THE CASE FOR EXPANDING THE
ROLE OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES, 91 Va. L. Rev. 93 (2005)
91 Va. L. Rev. 93 p.93
1042.
ARTICLE: EQUAL PROTECTION INCORPORATION, 88 Va. L. Rev. 951 (2002)
88 Va. L. Rev. 951 p.951
1043.
NOTE: THE AMBIGUOUS BASIS FOR CHEVRON DEFERENCE: MULTIPLE-AGENCY STATUTES, 88
Va. L. Rev. 879 (2002)
88 Va. L. Rev. 879 p.879
1044.
ARTICLE: CHEVRON DEFERENCE AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 86 Va. L. Rev. 649 (2000)
86 Va. L. Rev. 649 p.671
1045.
ESSAY: WARMING UP TO CLIMATE CHANGE LITIGATION, 93 Va. L. Rev. In Brief 63 (2007)
1046.
SYMPOSIUM--UNETHICAL SAYS WHO?: A LOOK AT HOW PEOPLE AND INSTITUTIONS HELP
BUSINESSES FULFILL THEIR ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS: "UNFIT TO SERVE" POST-ENRON, 42 Val.
U.L. Rev. 1081 (2008)
42 Val. U.L. Rev. 1081 p.1081
1047.
ARTICLE: THE RHETORIC OF SYMMETRY, 41 Val. U.L. Rev. 1165 (2007)
41 Val. U.L. Rev. 1165 p.1165
1048.
NOTE: Reverse Age Discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act: Protecting All
Page 103
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
Members of the Protected Class *, 38 Val. U.L. Rev. 217 (2003)
38 Val. U.L. Rev. 217 p.217
1049.
Note: Over the Counter but Under the Radar: Direct-to-Consumer Genetics Tests and FDA Regulation of
Medical Devices, 11 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 711 (2009)
1050.
Note: Advertising Obesity: Can the U.S. Follow the Lead of the UK in Limiting Television Marketing of
Unhealthy Foods to Children?, 42 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 317 (2009)
1051.
ARTICLE: Judicial Deference and the Credibility of Agency Commitments, 60 Vand. L. Rev. 1021 (2007)
60 Vand. L. Rev. 1021 p.1021
1052.
ARTICLE: Canons of Construction and the Elusive Quest for Neutral Reasoning, 58 Vand. L. Rev. 1 (2005)
58 Vand. L. Rev. 1 p.1
1053.
NOTE: Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right: Medicaid, Section 1983 and the Cost of an Enforceable Right to
Health Care, 56 Vand. L. Rev. 1479 (2003)
56 Vand. L. Rev. 1479 p.1479
1054.
NOTE: FMLA Notice Requirements and the Chevron Test: Maintaining a Hard-Fought Balance, 55 Vand.
L. Rev. 261 (2002)
55 Vand. L. Rev. 261 p.261
1055.
CASENOTE: FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, INC. V. EPA: THE DAILY PLUNGE INTO TROUBLED
WATERS, 19 Vill. Envtl. L.J. 123 (2008)
1056.
CASENOTE: COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS v. EPA: PASSING THE BUCK ON
REGULATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, 17 Vill. Envtl. L.J. 411 (2006)
1057.
SYMPOSIUM: CHEVRON MATTERS: HOW THE CHEVRON DOCTRINE REDEFINED THE ROLES OF
CONGRESS, COURTS AND AGENCIES IN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, 16 Vill. Envtl. L.J. 1 (2005)
1058.
SYMPOSIUM: LESSONS FROM ENRON, HOW DID CORPORATE AND SECURITIES LAW FAIL? A
REVISIONIST VIEW OF ENRON AND THE SUDDEN DEATH OF "MAY", 48 Vill. L. Rev. 1245 (2003)
48 Vill. L. Rev. 1245 p.1245
1059.
ARTICLE: CONSTRICTING PRODUCTS LIABILITY: REFORMS IN THEORY AND PROCEDURE, 48
Vill. L. Rev. 843 (2003)
48 Vill. L. Rev. 843 p.843
1060.
REUSCHLEIN LECTURE: FEDERALISM'S "OLD DEAL": WHAT'S RIGHT AND WRONG WITH
CONSERVATIVE JUDICIAL ACTIVISM *, 45 Vill. L. Rev. 201 (2000)
45 Vill. L. Rev. 201 p.201
1061.
SYMPOSIUM ON HEALTH CARE TECHNOLOGY: REGULATION AND REIMBURSEMENT: OPENING
THE DOOR TO "HARD-LOOK" REVIEW OF AGENCY PREEMPTION, 31 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 353
(2009)
Page 104
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1062.
ARTICLE: ARBITRATION AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE, 38 Wake Forest L. Rev. 1283 (2003)
38 Wake Forest L. Rev. 1283 p.1283
1063.
ARTICLE: ENGLE V. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO.: LESSONS IN STATE CLASS ACTIONS,
PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AND JURY DECISION-MAKING UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REACHING THE
DUE PROCESS LIMITS OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN TOBACCO LITIGATION THROUGH UNITARY
CLASSWIDE ADJUDICATION, 36 Wake Forest L. Rev. 979 (2001)
36 Wake Forest L. Rev. 979 p.979
1064.
NOTE: Running on Empty: Will Exxon Mobil Cause a Breakdown for Chevron and the Administrative
State?, 64 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 583 (2007)
64 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 583 p.583
1065.
ARTICLE: POPULAR SOVEREIGN GENERATED VERSUS GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION GENERATED
CONSTITUTIONAL NORMS: WHEN DOES A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NOT AMEND THE
CONSTITUTION?, 80 Wash. U. L. Q. 127 (2002)
80 Wash. U. L. Q. 127 p.127
1066.
ARTICLE: FRIENDLY SCIENCE: MEDICAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND TECHNICAL AMICI BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT, 78 Wash. U. L. Q. 789 (2000)
78 Wash. U. L. Q. 789 p.789
1067.
ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL PROFESSIONALISM ADAPTED TO CITIZEN SUIT PROCESSES, 10
Widener L. Rev. 527 (2004)
1068.
PRESIDENTIAL POWER IN THE 21ST CENTURY SYMPOSIUM: ARTICLE: THE PRESIDENT AS
SCIENTIST-IN-CHIEF, 45 Willamette L. Rev. 565 (2009)
45 Willamette L. Rev. 565 p.565
1069.
ARTICLE: SORCERER OR SORCERER'S APPRENTICE?: FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE CREATION
OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, 2003 Wis. L. Rev. 613 (2003)
2003 Wis. L. Rev. 613 p.613
1070.
ARTICLE: GO AHEAD. MAKE MY 90 DAYS:* SHOULD PLAINTIFFS BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE
NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS BEFORE FILING SUIT UNDER TITLE III OF THE AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES ACT?, 2001 Wis. L. Rev. 107 (2001)
2001 Wis. L. Rev. 107 p.107
1071.
ARTICLE: IF AT FIRST YOU DON'T SUCCEED, SIGN AN EXECUTIVE ORDER: PRESIDENT BUSH
AND THE EXPANSION OF CHARITABLE CHOICE, 15 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 1103 (2007)
1072.
NOTE: RATIFICATION OF KYOTO ASIDE: HOW INTERNATIONAL LAW AND MARKET
UNCERTAINTY OBVIATE THE CURRENT U.S. APPROACH TO CLIMATE CHANGE EMISSIONS, 47
Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 2089 (2006)
47 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 2089 p.2089
Page 105
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1073.
ESSAY: JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE POLICYMAKING, 44 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 375
(2002)
44 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 375 p.375
1074.
ARTICLE: COMMUNIS OPINIO AND THE METHODS OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION:
INTERPRETING LAW OR CHANGING LAW, 43 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 539 (2001)
43 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 539 p.539
1075.
ARTICLE: Designing Non-National Systems: The Case of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy, 43 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 141 (2001)
43 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 141 p.141
1076.
A CONSTITUTION OF COLLABORATION: PROTECTING FUNDAMENTAL VALUES WITH SECONDLOOK RULES OF INTERBRANCH DIALOGUE, 42 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1575 (2001)
42 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1575 p.1575
1077.
ARTICLE: RESPECTING DEFERENCE: CONCEPTUALIZING SKIDMORE WITHIN THE
ARCHITECTURE OF CHEVRON, 42 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1105 (2001)
42 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1105 p.1105
1078.
IMMIGRATION LAW: ENFORCING THE LIMITS OF THE EXECUTIVE'S AUTHORITY TO ISSUE
IMMIGRATION DETAINERS, 35 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 164 (2008)
35 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 164 p.164
1079.
Article: Medicare's Coverage with Study Participation Policy: Clinical Trials or Tribulations?, 7 Yale J.
Health Pol'y L. & Ethics 229 (2007)
1080.
DVELOPMENTS AND TRENDS IN THE LAW: Tobacco Control: A State Perspective, 3 Yale J. Health
Pol'y L. & Ethics 151 (2002)
1081.
ARTICLE: Watching over the Web: A Substantive Equality Regime for Broadband Applications, 24 Yale J.
On Reg. 1 (2007)
1082.
ARTICLE: Regulation By Bootstrap: Contingent Management of Hazardous Wastes Under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, 18 Yale J. On Reg. 85 (2001)
1083.
ARTICLE: Breaking the Camel's Back: Bringing Women's Human Rights to Bear on Tobacco Control, 13
Yale J.L. & Feminism 71 (2001)
1084.
ARTICLE: The Price of Public Action: Constitutional Doctrine and the Judicial Manipulation of Legislative
Enactment Costs, 118 Yale L.J. 2 (2008)
118 Yale L.J. 2 p.2
1085.
COMMENT: Ledbetter in Congress: The Limits of a Narrow Legislative Override, 117 Yale L.J. 971 (2008)
117 Yale L.J. 971 p.971
Page 106
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1086.
THE MOST DANGEROUS BRANCH? MAYORS, GOVERNORS, PRESIDENTS, AND THE RULE OF
LAW: A SYMPOSIUM ON EXECUTIVE POWER: COMMENTARY: Chevron and Agency
Norm-Entrepreneurship, 115 Yale L.J. 2623 (2006)
115 Yale L.J. 2623 p.2623
1087.
THE MOST DANGEROUS BRANCH? MAYORS, GOVERNORS, PRESIDENTS, AND THE RULE OF
LAW: A SYMPOSIUM ON EXECUTIVE POWER: ESSAY: Beyond Marbury: The Executive's Power To Say
What the Law Is, 115 Yale L.J. 2580 (2006)
115 Yale L.J. 2580 p.2580
1088.
ARTICLE: The Eleventh Amendment and the Reading of Precise Constitutional Texts, 113 Yale L.J. 1663
(2004)
113 Yale L.J. 1663 p.1663
1089.
BOOK REVIEW: Tobacco Unregulated: Why the FDA Failed, and What To Do Now A Question of Intent:
A Great American Battle with a Deadly Industry. By David Kessler.*, 111 Yale L.J. 1179 (2002)
111 Yale L.J. 1179 p.1179
1090.
Article: The Virtues of Simplicity, 116 Yale L.J. Pocket Part 70 (2006)
1091.
Article: Within Marbury: The Importance of Judicial Limits on the Executive's Power To Say What the Law
Is, 116 Yale L.J. Pocket Part 59 (2006)
1092.
Minutes from a Convention of the Federalist Society: The Roberts Court and Federalism, 4 NYU J.L. &
Liberty 330 (2009)
1093.
ARTICLE: FEDERALISM AND SEPARATION OF POWERS: Litigating to Regulate: Massachusetts v.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2006-7 Cato Sup. Ct. Rev. 193 (2006)
1094.
CASENOTE: DO WE ALLOW CONTRACT LAW TO ADMINISTER CIVIL RIGHTS REMEDIES?
CASENOTE ON HASKINS v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. *, 2003 Mich. St. DCL L. Rev. 251 (2003)
1095.
FEATURE STORY: 2007 U.S. SUPREME COURT REVIEW FOR TENNESSEE LAWYERS, 43 Tenn. B.J.
22 (2007)
ANNOTATIONS ( 1 Citing Annotation )
1096.
Federal-law aspects of government regulation, on grounds assertedly related to users' health, of tobacco
and tobacco products--Supreme Court cases, 146 L. Ed. 2d 1007, sec. 3
TREATISE CITATIONS ( 19 Citing Sources )
1097.
6-51 Administrative Law @ 51.01
1098.
5-71 Antieau on Local Government Law, Second Edition @ 71.02
1099.
IP4-4 Business Law Monographs @ 4.01
1100.
16-240A Business Organizations with Tax Planning @ 240A.11
1101.
2-17 Federal Standards of Review Supp. to @ 17.02
Page 107
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1102.
-17 Federal Standards of Review Scope
1103.
5-56 Products Liability @ 56.02
1104.
5-56 Products Liability @ 56.04
1105.
6-43 Government Contracts: Law, Admin & Proc @ 43.20
1106.
6-43 Government Contracts: Law, Admin & Proc @ 43.60
1107.
2-26 The Law of Advertising @ 26.04
1108.
5B-38 Lawyers' Medical Cyclopedia @ 38.68a
1109.
26-137 Personal Injury--Actions, Defenses, Damages @ 2
1110.
26-137 Personal Injury--Actions, Defenses, Damages @ 137.12
1111.
4-42 Products Liability Practice Guide @ 42.06
1112.
5-64 Products Liability Practice Guide @ 64.09
1113.
1-7 Regulatory Takings @ 7-9
1114.
1-8 Regulatory Takings @ 8-11
1115.
2-1A Treatise on Environmental Law @ 1A.02
SECONDARY SOURCES ( 1 Citing Source )
1116.
3 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 25, 3 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 25
3 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 25 p.36
BRIEFS ( 593 Citing Briefs )
1117.
HERTZ CORP. v. MELINDA, 2008 U.S. Briefs 1107, 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 720 (U.S. Aug. 10,
2009)
1118.
WOOD v. ALLEN, 2008 U.S. Briefs 9156, 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 684 (U.S. Aug. 3, 2009)
1119.
CUOMO v. CLEARING HOUSE ASS'N, 2008 U.S. Briefs 453, 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 338 (U.S.
Apr. 20, 2009)
1120.
CUOMO v. CLEARING HOUSE ASS'N, 2008 U.S. Briefs 453, 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 209 (U.S.
Mar. 4, 2009)
1121.
CUOMO v. CLEARING HOUSE ASS'N, 2008 U.S. Briefs 453, 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 211 (U.S.
Mar. 4, 2009)
1122.
CUOMO v. CLEARING HOUSE ASS'N, 2008 U.S. Briefs 453, 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 226 (U.S.
Mar. 4, 2009)
1123.
HORNE v. FLORES, 2008 U.S. Briefs 289, 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 159 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2009)
Page 108
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1124.
SALMAN KHADE ABUELHAWA v. UNITED STATES, 2008 U.S. Briefs 192, 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 131 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2009)
1125.
ANDERSEN v. CARLISLE, 2008 U.S. Briefs 146, 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 218 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2009)
1126.
SPEAKER OF THE ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES & PRESIDENT OF THE ARIZONA
SENATE v. FLORES, 2008 U.S. Briefs 294, 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 219 (U.S. Feb. 19, 2009)
1127.
HORNE v. FLORES, 2008 U.S. Briefs 289, 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 220 (U.S. Feb. 19, 2009)
1128.
UNITED STATES v. NATION, 2007 U.S. Briefs 1410, 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 25 (U.S. Jan. 9, 2009)
1129.
SALMAN KHADE ABUELHAWA v. UNITED STATES, 2008 U.S. Briefs 192, 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 4 (U.S. Jan. 5, 2009)
1130.
SALMAN KHADE ABUELHAWA v. UNITED STATES, 2008 U.S. Briefs 192, 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 5 (U.S. Jan. 5, 2009)
1131.
SALMAN KHADE ABUELHAWA v. UNITED STATES, 2008 U.S. Briefs 192, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 1120 (U.S. Dec. 29, 2008)
1132.
HAWAII v. OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS, 2007 U.S. Briefs 1372, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1056
(U.S. Dec. 11, 2008)
1133.
LEVEL 3 COMMUNS. v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, 2008 U.S. Briefs 626, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1265
(U.S. Nov. 7, 2008)
1134.
AT&T CORP. v. HULTEEN, 2007 U.S. Briefs 543, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 906 (U.S. Nov. 7, 2008)
1135.
ENTERGY v. RIVERKEEPER, 2007 U.S. Briefs 588, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 889 (U.S. Oct. 29,
2008)
1136.
PEAKE v. SANDERS, 2007 U.S. Briefs 1209, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 876 (U.S. Oct. 21, 2008)
1137.
PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. v. MAYOLA, 2007 U.S. Briefs 1216, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 867 (U.S.
Oct. 9, 2008)
1138.
ENTERGY v. EPA, 2007 U.S. Briefs 588, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 839 (U.S. Sept. 29, 2008)
1139.
COEUR ALASKA, INC. v. SOUTHEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION COUNCIL, 2007 U.S. Briefs 984,
2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 837 (U.S. Sept. 24, 2008)
1140.
UNITED STATES v. EURODIF S.A., 2007 U.S. Briefs 1059, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 828 (U.S. Sept.
22, 2008)
1141.
COEUR ALASKA, INC. v. SOUTHEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION COUNCIL, 2007 U.S. Briefs 984,
2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 822 (U.S. Sept. 17, 2008)
1142.
CARCIERI v. KEMPTHORNE, 2007 U.S. Briefs 526, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 730 (U.S. Aug. 25,
2008)
1143.
CARCIERI v. KEMPTHORNE, 2007 U.S. Briefs 526, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 731 (U.S. Aug. 25,
2008)
Page 109
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1144.
CARCIERI v. KEMPTHORNE, 2007 U.S. Briefs 526, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 721 (U.S. Aug. 18,
2008)
1145.
WYETH v. LEVINE, 2006 U.S. Briefs 1249, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 689 (U.S. Aug. 14, 2008)
1146.
WYETH v. LEVINE, 2006 U.S. Briefs 1249, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 691 (U.S. Aug. 14, 2008)
1147.
WYETH v. LEVINE, 2006 U.S. Briefs 1249, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 640 (U.S. Aug. 7, 2008)
1148.
ENTERGY v. EPA, 2007 U.S. Briefs 588, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 627 (U.S. July 21, 2008)
1149.
USEC INC. v. EURODIF S.A., 2007 U.S. Briefs 1059, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 611 (U.S. July 16,
2008)
1150.
ENTERGY v. EPA, 2007 U.S. Briefs 588, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 601 (U.S. July 14, 2008)
1151.
ENTERGY v. RIVERKEEPER, 2007 U.S. Briefs 588, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 604 (U.S. July 14,
2008)
1152.
NEGUSIE v. MUKASEY, 2007 U.S. Briefs 499, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 569 (U.S. June 23, 2008)
1153.
CARCIERI v. KEMPTHORNE, 2007 U.S. Briefs 526, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 519 (U.S. June 13,
2008)
1154.
FCC v. FOX TV STATIONS, INC., 2007 U.S. Briefs 582, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 478 (U.S. June 2,
2008)
1155.
WYETH v. LEVINE, 2006 U.S. Briefs 1249, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 477 (U.S. June 2, 2008)
1156.
WYETH v. LEVINE, 2006 U.S. Briefs 1249, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 458 (U.S. May 27, 2008)
1157.
MEACHAM v. KNOLLS ATOMIC POWER LAB., 2006 U.S. Briefs 1505, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
304 (U.S. Mar. 11, 2008)
1158.
CUOMO v. CLEARING HOUSE ASS'N, 2008 U.S. Briefs 453, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1141 (U.S.
Mar. 4, 2008)
1159.
CUOMO v. CLEARING HOUSE ASS'N, 2008 U.S. Briefs 453, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1146 (U.S.
Mar. 4, 2008)
1160.
KICKAPOO v. TEXAS, 2007 U.S. Briefs 1109, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1241 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2008)
1161.
USEC INC. v. EURODIF S.A., 2007 U.S. Briefs 1059, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1773 (U.S. Feb. 15,
2008)
1162.
ALLISON ENGINE CO. v. UNITED STATES ex rel. THACKER, 2007 U.S. Briefs 214, 2008 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 178 (U.S. Feb. 13, 2008)
1163.
ALLISON ENGINE CO. v. UNITED STATES ex rel. THACKER, 2007 U.S. Briefs 214, 2008 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 104 (U.S. Jan. 22, 2008)
1164.
WARNER-LAMBERT CO. LLC & PFIZER v. KENT, 2006 U.S. Briefs 1498, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
79 (U.S. Jan. 18, 2008)
1165.
EXXON SHIPPING CO. v. BAKER, 2007 U.S. Briefs 219, 2008 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 35 (U.S. Jan. 15,
Page 110
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
2008)
1166.
ALLISON ENGINE CO. v. UNITED STATES ex rel. THACKER, 2007 U.S. Briefs 214, 2008 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 34 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2008)
1167.
WYETH v. LEVINE, 2006 U.S. Briefs 491139, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2578 (U.S. Dec. 21, 2007)
1168.
MURPHY v. IRS, 2007 U.S. Briefs 802, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2674 (U.S. Dec. 13, 2007)
1169.
PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. v. GOOD, 2007 U.S. Briefs 562, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2855 (U.S.
Nov. 28, 2007)
1170.
ALI v. ACHIM, 2006 U.S. Briefs 1346, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1859 (U.S. Nov. 28, 2007)
1171.
WARNER-LAMBERT CO. LLC & PFIZER v. KENT, 2006 U.S. Briefs 1498, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
1855 (U.S. Nov. 21, 2007)
1172.
MORGAN STANLEY CAPITAL GROUP v. PUBLIC UTIL. DIST. NO. 1 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, 2006 U.S. Briefs 1457, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1680 (U.S. Nov. 21, 2007)
1173.
ZEN HUA DONG v. MUKASEY, 2007 U.S. Briefs 639, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2840 (U.S. Nov. 13,
2007)
1174.
PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. v. GOOD, 2007 U.S. Briefs 562, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2853 (U.S.
Oct. 26, 2007)
1175.
RIEGEL v. MEDTRONIC, INC., 2006 U.S. Briefs 179, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1298 (U.S. Oct. 19,
2007)
1176.
GENENDO PHARM. v. UNITED STATES, 2007 U.S. Briefs 477, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2235 (U.S.
Oct. 5, 2007)
1177.
ABDUS-SHAHID M.S. ALI v. FEDERAL BUR. OF PRISONS, 2006 U.S. Briefs 9130, 2007 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 773 (U.S. Sept. 24, 2007)
1178.
ALLISON ENGINE CO., INC. v. UNITED STATES ex rel. THACKER, 2007 U.S. Briefs 214, 2007 U.S. S.
Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2164 (U.S. Sept. 19, 2007)
1179.
ROWE v. NEW HAMPSHIRE MOTOR TRANSP. ASS'N, 2006 U.S. Briefs 457, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 570 (U.S. Aug. 23, 2007)
1180.
ROWE v. NEW HAMPSHIRE MOTOR TRANSP. ASS'N, 2006 U.S. Briefs 457, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 571 (U.S. Aug. 23, 2007)
1181.
ROWE v. NEW HAMPSHIRE MOTOR TRANSP. ASS'N, 2006 U.S. Briefs 457, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 573 (U.S. Aug. 22, 2007)
1182.
STONERIDGE INV. PARTNERS v. SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA, INC., 2006 U.S. Briefs 43, 2007 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 545 (U.S. Aug. 15, 2007)
1183.
LOGAN v. UNITED STATES, 2006 U.S. Briefs 6911, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 386 (U.S. May 25,
2007)
1184.
LOGAN v. UNITED STATES, 2006 U.S. Briefs 6911, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 389 (U.S. May 25,
2007)
Page 111
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1185.
CALIFORNIA ex rel. BROWN, JR. v. CORAL POWER, L.L.C., 2006 U.S. Briefs 41362, 2007 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 1690 (U.S. May 16, 2007)
1186.
CORAL POWER v. CALIFORNIA ex rel. BROWN, 2006 U.S. Briefs 426431, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
1055 (U.S. Apr. 25, 2007)
1187.
NUTRACEUTICAL CORP. v. ESCHENBACH, 2006 U.S. Briefs 716151, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
1634 (U.S. Apr. 13, 2007)
1188.
NATIONAL ASS'N OF HOME BUILDERS v. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, 2006 U.S. Briefs 340, 2007
U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 337 (U.S. Apr. 9, 2007)
1189.
UNITED STATES v. ATLANTIC RESEARCH CORP., 2006 U.S. Briefs 562, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
344 (U.S. Apr. 5, 2007)
1190.
LONG ISLAND CARE AT HOME, LTD. v. EVELYN COKE, 2006 U.S. Briefs 593, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 289 (U.S. Mar. 27, 2007)
1191.
NATIONAL ASS'N OF HOME BUILDERS v. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, 2006 U.S. Briefs 340, 2007
U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 114 (U.S. Feb. 16, 2007)
1192.
NUTRACEUTICAL CORP. v. ESCHENBACH, 2006 U.S. Briefs 716151, 2007 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
1631 (U.S. Jan. 3, 2007)
1193.
CORAL POWER v. CALIFORNIA ex rel. LOCKYER, 2006 U.S. Briefs 426431, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 2970 (U.S. Dec. 28, 2006)
1194.
UNITED STATES EPA v. NEW YORK, 2006 U.S. Briefs 221183, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2974 (U.S.
Dec. 18, 2006)
1195.
SAFECO v. BURR, 2006 U.S. Briefs 84, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1352 (U.S. Dec. 18, 2006)
1196.
CINERGY CORP. v. UNITED STATES, 2006 U.S. Briefs 357230, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2888
(U.S. Dec. 15, 2006)
1197.
MICROSOFT CORP. v. AT&T CORP., 2005 U.S. Briefs 1056, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1342 (U.S.
Dec. 15, 2006)
1198.
ZUNI PUB. SCH. DIST. v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUC., 2005 U.S. Briefs 1508, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 1310 (U.S. Dec. 14, 2006)
1199.
PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. v. MINNESOTA, 2006 U.S. Briefs 923930, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
2856 (U.S. Dec. 7, 2006)
1200.
UTILITY AIR REGULATORY GROUP v. NEW YORK, 2006 U.S. Briefs 552531, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 2953 (U.S. Nov. 27, 2006)
1201.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER & SEWER AUTH. v. FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, 2006 U.S. Briefs
119C, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2861 (U.S. Nov. 22, 2006)
1202.
NATIONAL ASS'N OF HOME BUILDERS v. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, 2006 U.S. Briefs 340, 2006
U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1712 (U.S. Nov. 20, 2006)
1203.
SAFECO v. BURR, 2006 U.S. Briefs 84, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1176 (U.S. Nov. 13, 2006)
Page 112
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1204.
SAFECO v. BURR, 2006 U.S. Briefs 84, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1183 (U.S. Nov. 13, 2006)
1205.
SAFECO v. BURR, 2006 U.S. Briefs 84, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1189 (U.S. Nov. 13, 2006)
1206.
ZUNI PUB. SCH. DIST. NO. 89 v. UNITED STATES DEP'T OF EDUC., 2005 U.S. Briefs 1508, 2006 U.S.
S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1154 (U.S. Nov. 9, 2006)
1207.
TURNBAUGH v. NATIONAL CITY BANK OF INDIANA, 2006 U.S. Briefs 904848, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 3283 (U.S. Nov. 7, 2006)
1208.
WATTERS v. WACHOVIA, 2005 U.S. Briefs 1342, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1132 (U.S. Nov. 3, 2006)
1209.
PRICE v. PHILIP MORRIS INC., 2006 U.S. Briefs 858587, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2125 (U.S. Nov.
1, 2006)
1210.
ROCKWELL INT'L CORP. v. UNITED STATES ex rel. STONE, 2005 U.S. Briefs 1272, 2006 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 1116 (U.S. Oct. 26, 2006)
1211.
ROWE v. NEW HAMPSHIRE MOTOR TRANSP. ASS'N, 2006 U.S. Briefs 457, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 2956 (U.S. Oct. 25, 2006)
1212.
ROWE v. NEW HAMPSHIRE MOTOR TRANSP. ASS'N, 2006 U.S. Briefs 457, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 2977 (U.S. Oct. 25, 2006)
1213.
MASSACHUSETTS v. U.S. EPA, 2005 U.S. Briefs 1120, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1099 (U.S. Oct. 24,
2006)
1214.
MASSACHUSETTS v. EPA, 2005 U.S. Briefs 1120, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1106 (U.S. Oct. 24,
2006)
1215.
MASSACHUSETTS v. EPA, 2005 U.S. Briefs 1120, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1107 (U.S. Oct. 24,
2006)
1216.
MASSACHUSETTS v. EPA, 2005 U.S. Briefs 1120, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1108 (U.S. Oct. 24,
2006)
1217.
MASSACHUSETTS v. EPA, 2005 U.S. Briefs 1120, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1109 (U.S. Oct. 24,
2006)
1218.
MASSACHUSETTS v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2005 U.S. Briefs 1120, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1111
(U.S. Oct. 24, 2006)
1219.
MASSACHUSETTS v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2005 U.S. Briefs 1120, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1112
(U.S. Oct. 24, 2006)
1220.
MASSACHUSETTS v. EPA, 2005 U.S. Briefs 1120, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1114 (U.S. Oct. 24,
2006)
1221.
MASSACHUSETTS v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2005 U.S. Briefs 1120, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1103
(U.S. Oct. 20, 2006)
1222.
PHILIP MORRIS USA v. MAYOLA, 2005 U.S. Briefs 1256, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1070 (U.S. Oct.
16, 2006)
Page 113
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1223.
LONG ISLAND CARE AT HOME, LTD. v. COKE, 2006 U.S. Briefs 340027, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
3252 (U.S. Sept. 26, 2006)
1224.
PHILIP MORRIS USA v. WILLIAMS, 2005 U.S. Briefs 1256, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 912 (U.S.
Sept. 15, 2006)
1225.
PHILIP MORRIS USA v. WILLIAMS, 2005 U.S. Briefs 1256, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 916 (U.S.
Sept. 15, 2006)
1226.
PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A. v. WILLIAMS, 2005 U.S. Briefs 1256, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 918 (U.S.
Sept. 15, 2006)
1227.
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE v. DUKE ENERGY CORP., 2005 U.S. Briefs 848, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 935 (U.S. Sept. 15, 2006)
1228.
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE v. DUKE ENERGY CORP., 2005 U.S. Briefs 848, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 943 (U.S. Sept. 15, 2006)
1229.
WATTERS v. WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., 2005 U.S. Briefs 1342, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 802 (U.S.
Sept. 1, 2006)
1230.
WATTERS v. WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., 2005 U.S. Briefs 1342, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 803 (U.S.
Sept. 1, 2006)
1231.
WATTERS v. WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., 2005 U.S. Briefs 1342, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 804 (U.S.
Sept. 1, 2006)
1232.
WATTERS v. WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., 2005 U.S. Briefs 1342, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 807 (U.S.
Sept. 1, 2006)
1233.
MASSACHUSETTS v. EPA, 2005 U.S. Briefs 1120, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 736 (U.S. Aug. 31,
2006)
1234.
MASSACHUSETTS v. EPA, 2005 U.S. Briefs 1120, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 784 (U.S. Aug. 31,
2006)
1235.
MASSACHUSETTS v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2005 U.S. Briefs 1120, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 786
(U.S. Aug. 31, 2006)
1236.
MASSACHUSETTS v. EPA, 2005 U.S. Briefs 1120, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 790 (U.S. Aug. 31,
2006)
1237.
MASSACHUSETTS v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2005 U.S. Briefs 1120, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 798
(U.S. Aug. 31, 2006)
1238.
UNITED AMERICA v. SALADINO, 2006 U.S. Briefs 935521, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 3269 (U.S.
Aug. 29, 2006)
1239.
FREEEATS.COM v. STENEHJEM, 2006 U.S. Briefs 127B, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1445 (U.S. Aug.
28, 2006)
1240.
SOUTH CAROLINA STATE BD. OF DENTISTRY v. FTC, 2006 U.S. Briefs 67298, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 2449 (U.S. Aug. 24, 2006)
1241.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER & SEWER AUTH. v. FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, 2006 U.S. Briefs
Page 114
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
119C, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1440 (U.S. Aug. 24, 2006)
1242.
ROWE v. NEW HAMPSHIRE MOTOR TRANSP. ASS'N, 2006 U.S. Briefs 457, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 2976 (U.S. Aug. 16, 2006)
1243.
BP America Prod. Co. v. Burton, 2005 U.S. Briefs 669, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 558 (U.S. Aug. 4,
2006)
1244.
HARRELL v. USPS, 2006 U.S. Briefs 936004, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2143 (U.S. Aug. 2, 2006)
1245.
PHILIP MORRIS USA v. MAYOLA, 2005 U.S. Briefs 1256, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 512 (U.S. July
28, 2006)
1246.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER & SEWER AUTH. v. FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, 2006 U.S. Briefs
119C, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2860 (U.S. July 21, 2006)
1247.
STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. CO. v. WILLES, 2006 U.S. Briefs 987813, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
3167 (U.S. July 19, 2006)
1248.
SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA v. BURR, 2006 U.S. Briefs 90827, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 3274
(U.S. July 19, 2006)
1249.
Kalil v. United States DOJ, 2006 U.S. Briefs 370830, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2104 (U.S. July 5,
2006)
1250.
BP AMERICA PROD. CO. v. WATSON, 2005 U.S. Briefs 669, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 455 (U.S.
June 13, 2006)
1251.
BP AMERICA PROD. CO. v. BURTON, 2005 U.S. Briefs 669, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 457 (U.S.
June 13, 2006)
1252.
PT v. KARAHA BODAS CO., 2005 U.S. Briefs 369136, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2082 (U.S. June 6,
2006)
1253.
ZUNI PUB. SCH. DIST. NO. 89 & GALLUP-MCKINLEY COUNTY SCH. DIST. No. 1 v. USDE, 2005 U.S.
Briefs 1508B, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2943 (U.S. May 24, 2006)
1254.
BURKE v. WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., 2005 U.S. Briefs 431A, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1403 (U.S.
May 18, 2006)
1255.
BURKE v. WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., 2005 U.S. Briefs 431A, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 3335 (U.S.
May 18, 2006)
1256.
DARK-EYES v. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SERVS., 2005 U.S. Briefs 415660, 2006 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 2588 (U.S. May 15, 2006)
1257.
KOSOY v. GTE MOBILNET, 2005 U.S. Briefs 1409, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 3554 (U.S. May 4,
2006)
1258.
WATSON v. PHILIP MORRIS COS., 2005 U.S. Briefs 1284, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1649 (U.S. May
1, 2006)
1259.
W.R. GRACE & CO. v. UNITED STATES, 2005 U.S. Briefs 1363B, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1405
(U.S. Apr. 27, 2006)
Page 115
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1260.
KING v. GRAND RIVER ENTERPRISES SIX NATIONS, 2005 U.S. Briefs 645926, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 1792 (U.S. Apr. 18, 2006)
1261.
EBAY INC., 2005 U.S. Briefs 130, 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 340 (U.S. Mar. 10, 2006)
1262.
VIRGILIO, 2005 U.S. Briefs 488, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2546 (U.S. Dec. 22, 2005)
1263.
DOE v. MANN, 2005 U.S. Briefs 815, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2377 (U.S. Dec. 19, 2005)
1264.
RAPANOS v. UNITED STATES, 2004 U.S. Briefs 1034, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 883 (U.S. Dec. 2,
2005)
1265.
BP AMERICA PROD. CO. & ATL. RICHFIELD CO. v. REBECCA W. WATSON, 2005 U.S. Briefs 352702,
2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2340 (U.S. Nov. 22, 2005)
1266.
ARKANSAS HHS v. AHLBORN, 2004 U.S. Briefs 1506, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 704 (U.S. Nov. 22,
2005)
1267.
BURKE v. WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., 2005 U.S. Briefs 431A, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2355 (U.S.
Nov. 3, 2005)
1268.
THOMASIAN v. UNITED STATES, 2005 U.S. Briefs 532A, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1407 (U.S. Oct.
24, 2005)
1269.
VIRGILIO v. CITY OF NEW YORK & MOTOROLA, INC., 2005 U.S. Briefs 488, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 2543 (U.S. Oct. 13, 2005)
1270.
BURKE v. WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., 2005 U.S. Briefs 431A, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2352 (U.S.
Sept. 30, 2005)
1271.
RUMSFELD v. FORUM, 2004 U.S. Briefs 1152, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 621 (U.S. Sept. 20, 2005)
1272.
UNITED STATES v. PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., 2005 U.S. Briefs 92B, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
1215 (U.S. Sept. 16, 2005)
1273.
WACHOVIA BANK v. SCHMIDT, III, 2004 U.S. Briefs 1186, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 548 (U.S.
Aug. 18, 2005)
1274.
WACHOVIA BANK v. SCHMIDT, III, 2004 U.S. Briefs 1186, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 552 (U.S.
Aug. 18, 2005)
1275.
GONZALES v. OREGON, 2004 U.S. Briefs 623, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 439 (U.S. July 18, 2005)
1276.
GONZALES v. OREGON, 2004 U.S. Briefs 623, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 442 (U.S. July 18, 2005)
1277.
GONZALES v. OREGON, 2004 U.S. Briefs 623, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 453 (U.S. July 18, 2005)
1278.
GONZALES v. OREGON, 2004 U.S. Briefs 623, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 967 (U.S. July 18, 2005)
1279.
GONZALES v. OREGON, 2004 U.S. Briefs 623, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1750 (U.S. July 18, 2005)
1280.
FULLENKAMP v. JOHANNS, 2004 U.S. Briefs 1361, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2205 (U.S. July 12,
2005)
1281.
GONZALES v. OREGON, 2004 U.S. Briefs 623, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1754 (U.S. May 9, 2005)
Page 116
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1282.
NATIONAL CABLE & TELCOMS. ASS'N v. BRAND X INTERNET SERVS., 2004 U.S. Briefs 277, 2005
U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 198 (U.S. Feb. 22, 2005)
1283.
NATIONAL CABLE & TELCOMS. ASS'N v. BRAND X INTERNET SERVS., 2004 U.S. Briefs 277, 2005
U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 211 (U.S. Feb. 22, 2005)
1284.
MERCK KGAA v. INTEGRA LIFE SCIS., INC., 2003 U.S. Briefs 1237, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 167
(U.S. Feb. 17, 2005)
1285.
KELO v. CITY OF NEW LONDON & NEW LONDON DEV. CORP., 2004 U.S. Briefs 108, 2005 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 273 (U.S. Jan. 21, 2005)
1286.
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES v. ABRAMS, 2003 U.S. Briefs 1601, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 4
(U.S. Jan. 6, 2005)
1287.
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES v. ABRAMS, 2003 U.S. Briefs 1601, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 8
(U.S. Jan. 6, 2005)
1288.
DURA PHARMS., INC. v. BROUDO, 2003 U.S. Briefs 932, 2004 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 588 (U.S. Sept.
13, 2004)
1289.
SMALL v. UNITED STATES, 2003 U.S. Briefs 750, 2004 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 578 (U.S. Sept. 10,
2004)
1290.
SMALL v. UNITED STATES, 2003 U.S. Briefs 750, 2004 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 391 (U.S. June 10,
2004)
1291.
JAMA v. INS, 2003 U.S. Briefs 674, 2004 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 355 (U.S. May 18, 2004)
1292.
SOSA v. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN, 2003 U.S. Briefs 339, 2004 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 267 (U.S. Mar. 23,
2004)
1293.
SOSA v. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN, 2003 U.S. Briefs 339, 2004 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 188 (U.S. Feb. 27,
2004)
1294.
SOSA v. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN, 2003 U.S. Briefs 339, 2004 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 221 (U.S. Feb. 27,
2004)
1295.
SOSA v. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN, 2003 U.S. Briefs 339, 2004 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 220 (U.S. Feb. 26,
2004)
1296.
BENITEZ v. MATA, 2003 U.S. Briefs 7434, 2004 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 163 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2004)
1297.
SCARBOROUGH v. PRINCIPI, 2002 U.S. Briefs 1657, 2004 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 86 (U.S. Jan. 28,
2004)
1298.
SOSA v. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN, 2003 U.S. Briefs 339, 2004 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 66 (U.S. Jan. 23,
2004)
1299.
SOSA v. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN, 2003 U.S. Briefs 339, 2004 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 78 (U.S. Jan. 23,
2004)
1300.
NIXON v. MISSOURI MUN. LEAGUE, 2002 U.S. Briefs 1238, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 949 (U.S.
Nov. 28, 2003)
Page 117
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1301.
ENGINE MFRS. ASS'N v. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MGMT. DIST., 2002 U.S. Briefs 1343, 2003 U.S.
S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 713 (U.S. Aug. 29, 2003)
1302.
ENGINE MFRS. ASS'N v. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MGMT. DIST., 2002 U.S. Briefs 1343, 2003 U.S.
S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 726 (U.S. Aug. 29, 2003)
1303.
GENERAL DYNAMICS LAND SYS. v. CLINE, 2002 U.S. Briefs 1080, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 741
(U.S. Aug. 29, 2003)
1304.
ALASKA v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2002 U.S. Briefs 658, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 601 (U.S. July 16,
2003)
1305.
KONTRICK v. RYAN, 2002 U.S. Briefs 819, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 529 (U.S. June 12, 2003)
1306.
VERIZON COMMUNS. INC. v. LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, 2002 U.S. Briefs 682, 2003 U.S.
S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 505 (U.S. May 23, 2003)
1307.
VERIZON COMMUNS. INC. v. LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, 2002 U.S. Briefs 682, 2003 U.S.
S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 509 (U.S. May 23, 2003)
1308.
GRUTTER v. BOLLINGER, 2002 U.S. Briefs 241, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 536 (U.S. Feb. 19, 2003)
1309.
DASTAR CORP. v. TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORP., 2002 U.S. Briefs 428, 2003 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 143 (U.S. Feb. 13, 2003)
1310.
NATIONAL PARK HOSPITALITY ASS'N v. UNITED STATES DOI, 2002 U.S. Briefs 196, 2003 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 106 (U.S. Jan. 27, 2003)
1311.
SELL v. UNITED STATES, 2002 U.S. Briefs 5664, 2003 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 84 (U.S. Jan. 22, 2003)
1312.
PHARM. RESEARCH & MFRS. OF AMERICA v. CONCANNON, 2001 U.S. Briefs 188, 2002 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 702 (U.S. Dec. 6, 2002)
1313.
VERIZON COMMUNS. INC. v. LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS, 2002 U.S. Briefs 682, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 761 (U.S. Nov. 1, 2002)
1314.
UNITED STATES v. NAVAJO NATION, 2001 U.S. Briefs 1375, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 586 (U.S.
Oct. 9, 2002)
1315.
SMITH v. BRANCH, 2001 U.S. Briefs 1596, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 488 (U.S. Aug. 23, 2002)
1316.
DOLE FOOD CO. v. PATRICKSON, 2001 U.S. Briefs 593, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 506 (U.S. Aug.
23, 2002)
1317.
HOWSAM v. DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC., 2001 U.S. Briefs 800, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 479
(U.S. Aug. 22, 2002)
1318.
FCC v. NEXTWAVE PERSONAL COMMUNS. INC., 2001 U.S. Briefs 653, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
302 (U.S. June 21, 2002)
1319.
FCC v. NEXTWAVE PERSONAL COMMUNS. INC., 2001 U.S. Briefs 653, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
304 (U.S. June 21, 2002)
1320.
FCC v. NEXTWAVE PERSONAL COMMUNS. INC., 2001 U.S. Briefs 653, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
Page 118
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
305 (U.S. June 21, 2002)
1321.
United States v. Bean, 2001 U.S. Briefs 704, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 313 (U.S. June 14, 2002)
1322.
UNITED STATES v. BEAN, 2001 U.S. Briefs 704, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 218 (U.S. Apr. 8, 2002)
1323.
UNITED STATES v. FIOR D'ITALIA, INC., 2001 U.S. Briefs 463, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 203 (U.S.
Mar. 26, 2002)
1324.
ADAMS v. FLORIDA POWER CORP., 2001 U.S. Briefs 584, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 142 (U.S. Feb.
25, 2002)
1325.
OAKLAND HOUS. AUTH. v. RUCKER, 2000 U.S. Briefs 1770, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 57 (U.S.
Jan. 25, 2002)
1326.
ADAMS v. FLORIDA POWER CORP., 2001 U.S. Briefs 584, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 43 (U.S. Jan.
24, 2002)
1327.
ADAMS v. FLORIDA POWER CORP., 2001 U.S. Briefs 584, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 60 (U.S. Jan.
24, 2002)
1328.
HARRIS v. UNITED STATES, 2000 U.S. Briefs 10666, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 39 (U.S. Jan. 24,
2002)
1329.
THOMPSON v. WESTERN STATES MED. CTR., 2001 U.S. Briefs 344, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 27
(U.S. Jan. 17, 2002)
1330.
THOMPSON v. WESTERN STATES MED. CTR., 2001 U.S. Briefs 344, 2002 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 34
(U.S. Jan. 11, 2002)
1331.
UNITED STATES HUD v. RUCKER, 2000 U.S. Briefs 1770, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 126 (U.S. Dec.
20, 2001)
1332.
UNITED STATES HUD v. RUCKER, 2000 U.S. Briefs 1770, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 161 (U.S. Dec.
20, 2001)
1333.
UNITED STATES HUD v. RUCKER, 2000 U.S. Briefs 1770, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 165 (U.S. Dec.
20, 2001)
1334.
RAGSDALE v. WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC., 2000 U.S. Briefs 6029, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
65 (U.S. Nov. 2, 2001)
1335.
THOMPSON v. WESTERN STATES MED. CTR., 2001 U.S. Briefs 344, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
1160 (U.S. Sept. 25, 2001)
1336.
MATHIAS v. WORLDCOM TECHS., 2000 U.S. Briefs 878, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 530 (U.S. Sept.
10, 2001)
1337.
RAGSDALE v. WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC., 2000 U.S. Briefs 6029, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
520 (U.S. Sept. 7, 2001)
1338.
New York v. FERC, 2000 U.S. Briefs 568, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 463 (U.S. July 2, 2001)
1339.
MASSANARI v. SIGMON COAL CO., 2000 U.S. Briefs 1307, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 418 (U.S. June
21, 2001)
Page 119
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1340.
THE CHICKASAW NATION v. UNITED STATES, 2000 U.S. Briefs 507, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 412
(U.S. June 21, 2001)
1341.
J.E.M. AG SUPPLY, INC. v. PIONEER HI-BRED INT'L, INC., 1999 U.S. Briefs 1996, 2001 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 762 (U.S. June 15, 2001)
1342.
J.E.M. AG SUPPLY, INC. v. PIONEER HI-BRED INT'L, INC., 1999 U.S. Briefs 1996, 2001 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 388 (U.S. June 15, 2001)
1343.
J.E.M. AG SUPPLY, INC. v. PIONEER HI-BRED INT'L, INC., 1999 U.S. Briefs 1996, 2001 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 389 (U.S. June 15, 2001)
1344.
J.E.M. AG SUPPLY, INC. v. PIONEER HI-BRED INT'L, INC., 1999 U.S. Briefs 1996, 2001 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 407 (U.S. June 15, 2001)
1345.
J.E.M. AG SUPPLY, INC. v. PIONEER HI-BRED INT'L, INC., 1999 U.S. Briefs 1996, 2001 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 408 (U.S. June 15, 2001)
1346.
J.E.M. AG SUPPLY, INC. v. PIONEER HI-BRED INT'L, INC., 1999 U.S. Briefs 1996, 2001 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 409 (U.S. June 15, 2001)
1347.
J.E.M. AG SUPPLY, INC. v. PIONEER HI-BRED INT'L, INC., 1999 U.S. Briefs 1996, 2001 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 410 (U.S. June 15, 2001)
1348.
HARRIS v. UNITED STATES, 2000 U.S. Briefs 10666, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1066 (U.S. June 14,
2001)
1349.
J.E.M. AG SUPPLY, INC. v. PIONEER HI-BRED INT'L, INC., 1999 U.S. Briefs 1996, 2001 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 756 (U.S. June 11, 2001)
1350.
WORLDCOM, INC. v. VERIZON COMMUNS. INC., 2000 U.S. Briefs 555, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
777 (U.S. June 8, 2001)
1351.
FCC v. GULF POWER CO., 2000 U.S. Briefs 832, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 730 (U.S. June 5, 2001)
1352.
FCC v. GULF POWER CO., 2000 U.S. Briefs 832, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 731 (U.S. June 5, 2001)
1353.
NATIONAL CABLE TV ASS'N, INC. v. GULF POWER CO., 2000 U.S. Briefs 832, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 732 (U.S. June 5, 2001)
1354.
NEW YORK v. FERC, 2000 U.S. Briefs 568, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 714 (U.S. May 31, 2001)
1355.
NEW YORK v. FERC, 2000 U.S. Briefs 568, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 422 (U.S. May 31, 2001)
1356.
OAKLAND HOUS. AUTH. v. RUCKER, 2001 U.S. Briefs 1770, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 945 (U.S.
May 24, 2001)
1357.
CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. v. ECHAZABAL, 2000 U.S. Briefs 1406, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1144 (U.S.
May 14, 2001)
1358.
J.E.M. AG SUPPLY, INC. v. PIONEER HI-BRED INT'L, INC., 1999 U.S. Briefs 1996, 2001 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 553 (U.S. May 4, 2001)
1359.
TRW INC. v. ANDREWS, 2000 U.S. Briefs 1045, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 668 (U.S. Apr. 19, 2001)
Page 120
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1360.
New York v. FERC, 2000 U.S. Briefs 568, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 694 (U.S. Apr. 19, 2001)
1361.
ALTADIS U.S.A. INC. v. REILLY, 2000 U.S. Briefs 597, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 670 (U.S. Apr. 18,
2001)
1362.
WORLDCOM, INC. v. VERIZON COMMUNS., INC., 2000 U.S. Briefs 555, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
812 (U.S. Apr. 9, 2001)
1363.
LORILLARD TOBACCO CO. v. REILLY, 2000 U.S. Briefs 596, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 611 (U.S.
Mar. 26, 2001)
1364.
LORILLARD TOBACCO CO. v. REILLY, 2000 U.S. Briefs 596, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 614 (U.S.
Mar. 26, 2001)
1365.
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 2000 U.S. Briefs 596, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 615 (U.S. Mar. 26,
2001)
1366.
LORILLARD TOBACCO CO. v. REILLY, 2000 U.S. Briefs 596, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 636 (U.S.
Mar. 26, 2001)
1367.
LORILLARD TOBACCO CO. v. REILLY, 2000 U.S. Briefs 596, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 638 (U.S.
Mar. 26, 2001)
1368.
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 2000 U.S. Briefs 596, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 639 (U.S. Mar. 26,
2001)
1369.
LORILLARD TOBACCO CO. v. REILLY, 2000 U.S. Briefs 596, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 640 (U.S.
Mar. 26, 2001)
1370.
UNITED STATES v. OAKLAND CANNABIS BUYERS' COOP., 2000 U.S. Briefs 151, 2001 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 607 (U.S. Mar. 21, 2001)
1371.
APFEL v. SIGMON COAL CO., 2000 U.S. Briefs 1307, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1142 (U.S. Mar. 20,
2001)
1372.
ALTADIS U.S.A. INC. v. REILLY, 2000 U.S. Briefs 597, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 374 (U.S. Feb. 22,
2001)
1373.
LORILLARD TOBACCO CO. v. REILLY, 2000 U.S. Briefs 596, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 375 (U.S.
Feb. 22, 2001)
1374.
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 2000 U.S. Briefs 596, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 376 (U.S. Feb. 22,
2001)
1375.
LORILLARD TOBACCO CO. v. REILLY, 2000 U.S. Briefs 596, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 379 (U.S.
Feb. 22, 2001)
1376.
LORILLARD TOBACCO CO. v. REILLY, 2000 U.S. Briefs 596, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 384 (U.S.
Feb. 22, 2001)
1377.
NEW YORK v. FERC, 2000 U.S. Briefs 568, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 949 (U.S. Feb. 2, 2001)
1378.
NEW YORK v. FERC, 2000 U.S. Briefs 568, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 948 (U.S. Jan. 26, 2001)
Page 121
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1379.
J.E.M. AG SUPPLY, INC. v. PIONEER HI-BRED INT'L, INC., 1999 U.S. Briefs 1996, 2001 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 1065 (U.S. Jan. 26, 2001)
1380.
J.E.M. AG SUPPLY, INC. v. PIONEER HI-BRED INT'L, INC., 1999 U.S. Briefs 1996, 2001 U.S. S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 1064 (U.S. Jan. 17, 2001)
1381.
NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. TASINI, 2000 U.S. Briefs 201, 2001 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 251 (U.S. Jan. 5,
2001)
1382.
PGA TOUR, INC. v. MARTIN, 2000 U.S. Briefs 24, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 743 (U.S. Dec. 13,
2000)
1383.
ALEXANDER v. SANDOVAL, 1999 U.S. Briefs 1908, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 717 (U.S. Dec. 13,
2000)
1384.
ALEXANDER v. SANDOVAL, 1999 U.S. Briefs 1908, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 720 (U.S. Dec. 13,
2000)
1385.
Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., 2000 U.S. Briefs 836, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 641
(U.S. Nov. 30, 2000)
1386.
Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., 2000 U.S. Briefs 836, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 625
(U.S. Nov. 28, 2000)
1387.
Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., 2000 U.S. Briefs 836, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 629
(U.S. Nov. 28, 2000)
1388.
BUSH v. PALM BEACH COUNTY CANVASSING BD., 2000 U.S. Briefs 836, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 643 (U.S. Nov. 28, 2000)
1389.
ALEXANDER v. SANDOVAL, 1999 U.S. Briefs 1908, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 616 (U.S. Nov. 13,
2000)
1390.
LORILLARD TOBACCO CO. v. REILLY, 2000 U.S. Briefs 596, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 829 (U.S.
Oct. 16, 2000)
1391.
ALTADIS U.S.A. INC. v. REILLY, 2000 U.S. Briefs 596, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 845 (U.S. Oct. 16,
2000)
1392.
NEW YORK v. FERC, 2000 U.S. Briefs 568, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 821 (U.S. Oct. 12, 2000)
1393.
SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF NORTHERN COOK COUNTY v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF
ENG'RS, 1999 U.S. Briefs 1178, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 516 (U.S. Sept. 20, 2000)
1394.
CIRCUIT CITY STORES v. ADAMS, 1999 U.S. Briefs 1379, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 511 (U.S. Sept.
19, 2000)
1395.
BUCKMAN CO. v. PLAINTIFFS' LEGAL COMM., 1998 U.S. Briefs 1768, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
505 (U.S. Sept. 13, 2000)
1396.
AMERICAN TRUCKING ASS'NS, INC. v. BROWNER, 1999 U.S. Briefs 1426, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 472 (U.S. Sept. 11, 2000)
1397.
AMERICAN TRUCKING ASS'NS, INC. v. BROWNER, 1999 U.S. Briefs 1426, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 473 (U.S. Sept. 11, 2000)
Page 122
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1398.
AMERICAN TRUCKING ASS'NS, INC. v. BROWNER, 1999 U.S. Briefs 1426, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 474 (U.S. Sept. 11, 2000)
1399.
BROWNER v. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASS'NS, INC., 1999 U.S. Briefs 1257, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 448 (U.S. Sept. 11, 2000)
1400.
BROWNER v. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASS'NS, INC., 1999 U.S. Briefs 1257, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 451 (U.S. Sept. 11, 2000)
1401.
BROWNER v. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASS'NS, INC., 1999 U.S. Briefs 1257, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 457 (U.S. Sept. 11, 2000)
1402.
BROWNER v. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASS'NS, INC., 1999 U.S. Briefs 1257, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 458 (U.S. Sept. 11, 2000)
1403.
BROWNER v. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASS'NS, INC., 1999 U.S. Briefs 1257, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 460 (U.S. Sept. 11, 2000)
1404.
BROWNER v. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASS'NS, INC., 1999 U.S. Briefs 1257, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 461 (U.S. Sept. 11, 2000)
1405.
AMERICAN TRUCKING ASS'NS, INC. v. BROWNER, 1999 U.S. Briefs 1426, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 469 (U.S. Sept. 8, 2000)
1406.
BROWNER v. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASS'NS, INC., 1999 U.S. Briefs 1257, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 454 (U.S. Sept. 8, 2000)
1407.
UNITED STATES v. MEAD CORP., 1999 U.S. Briefs 1434, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 407 (U.S. Aug.
16, 2000)
1408.
MICROSOFT CORP. v. UNITED STATES, 2000 U.S. Briefs 139, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 949 (U.S.
Aug. 15, 2000)
1409.
SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF NORTHERN COOK COUNTY v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF
ENG'RS, 1999 U.S. Briefs 1178, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 366 (U.S. July 27, 2000)
1410.
SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF NORTHERN COOK COUNTY v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF
ENG'RS, 1999 U.S. Briefs 1178, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 370 (U.S. July 27, 2000)
1411.
SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF NORTHERN COOK COUNTY v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF
ENG'RS, 1999 U.S. Briefs 1178, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 371 (U.S. July 27, 2000)
1412.
SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF NORTHERN COOK COUNTY v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF
ENG'RS, 1999 U.S. Briefs 1178, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 385 (U.S. July 27, 2000)
1413.
SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF NORTHERN COOK COUNTY v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF
ENG'RS, 1999 U.S. Briefs 1178, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 363 (U.S. July 25, 2000)
1414.
AMERICAN TRUCKING ASS'NS, INC. v. BROWNER, 1999 U.S. Briefs 1426, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 344 (U.S. July 21, 2000)
1415.
American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. Browner, 1999 U.S. Briefs 1426, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 345
(U.S. July 21, 2000)
Page 123
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1416.
AMERICAN TRUCKING ASS'NS, INC. v. BROWNER, 1999 U.S. Briefs 1426, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 350 (U.S. July 21, 2000)
1417.
AMERICAN TRUCKING ASS'NS, INC. v. BROWNER, 1999 U.S. Briefs 1426, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 352 (U.S. July 21, 2000)
1418.
GREEN TREE FIN. CORP. - ALABAMA, & GREEN TREE FIN. CORP. v. RANDOLPH, 1999 U.S. Briefs
1235, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 354 (U.S. July 21, 2000)
1419.
AMERICAN TRUCKING ASS'NS, INC. v. BROWNER, 1999 U.S. Briefs 1426, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 342 (U.S. July 20, 2000)
1420.
AMERICAN TRUCKING ASS'NS, INC. v. BROWNER, 1999 U.S. Briefs 1426, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 343 (U.S. July 20, 2000)
1421.
ALEXANDER v. SANDOVAL, 2099 U.S. Briefs 1908, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1134 (U.S. July 14,
2000)
1422.
ALEXANDER v. SANDOVAL, 1999 U.S. Briefs 1908, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 361 (U.S. July 14,
2000)
1423.
UNITED STATES v. MEAD CORP., 1999 U.S. Briefs 1434, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 327 (U.S. July
14, 2000)
1424.
CENTRAL GREEN CO. v. UNITED STATES, 1999 U.S. Briefs 859, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 299
(U.S. June 2, 2000)
1425.
KANSAS v. NEBRASKA, 2000 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 818 (U.S. June 1, 2000)
1426.
PHILIP MORRIS, INC. v. REILLY, 2000 U.S. 1st Cir. Briefs 2425, 2001 U.S. 1st Cir. Briefs LEXIS 54 (1st
Cir. Nov. 30, 2001)
1427.
PHILLIP MORRIS, INC. v. REILLY, 2000 U.S. 1st Cir. Briefs 2425, 2001 U.S. 1st Cir. Briefs LEXIS 10
(1st Cir. Nov. 29, 2001)
1428.
PHILIP MORRIS INC. v. REILLY, 2000 U.S. 1st Cir. Briefs 2425, 2001 U.S. 1st Cir. Briefs LEXIS 45 (1st
Cir. Mar. 15, 2001)
1429.
Philip Morris Inc. v. Reilly, 2000 U.S. 1st Cir. Briefs 2425, 2001 U.S. 1st Cir. Briefs LEXIS 46 (1st Cir.
Mar. 15, 2001)
1430.
PHILIP MORRIS INC. v. REILLY, 2000 U.S. 1st Cir. Briefs 2425, 2001 U.S. 1st Cir. Briefs LEXIS 44 (1st
Cir. Mar. 12, 2001)
1431.
PHILIP MORRIS, INC. v. REILLY, 2000 U.S. 1st Cir. Briefs 2425, 2001 U.S. 1st Cir. Briefs LEXIS 43 (1st
Cir. Feb. 28, 2001)
1432.
PHILIP MORRIS, INC. v. REILLY, 2000 U.S. 1st Cir. Briefs 2425, 2001 U.S. 1st Cir. Briefs LEXIS 11 (1st
Cir. Feb. 8, 2001)
1433.
PENSION BEN. GUAR. CORP. v. ONEIDA LTD., 2008 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 2964, 2008 U.S. 2nd Cir.
Briefs LEXIS 251 (2d Cir. Oct. 10, 2008)
1434.
HUA ZENG, v. BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVS., 2005 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 5485,
2007 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 783 (2d Cir. Oct. 1, 2007)
Page 124
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1435.
DAVID E. ROBERTS, ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF GREGORY J. ROBERTS v. AMTRAK,
2006 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 4719, 2007 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 466 (2d Cir. May 3, 2007)
1436.
Rajah v. Mukasey, 2006 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 3493, 2007 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 578 (2d Cir. Apr. 4,
2007)
1437.
YUEN JIN v. GONZALES, 2005 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 5485, 2006 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 1284 (2d Cir.
Sept. 27, 2006)
1438.
JIAO CHEN v. UNITED STATES DOJ, 2005 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 5485, 2006 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs LEXIS
1292 (2d Cir. Aug. 18, 2006)
1439.
DESIANO v. WARNER-LAMBERT, 2005 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 1705A, 2005 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 307
(2d Cir. Aug. 18, 2005)
1440.
KRUSE v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTG., INC., 2003 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 7665, 2003 U.S. 2nd Cir.
Briefs LEXIS 105 (2d Cir. Dec. 20, 2003)
1441.
In re SIMON II LITIG., 2003 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 7140L, 2003 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 17 (2d Cir. Aug.
18, 2003)
1442.
MEACHAM v. KAPL, 2002 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 7378L, 2003 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 8 (2d Cir. Feb.
21, 2003)
1443.
MEACHAM v. KAPL, 2002 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 7378, 2003 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 193 (2d Cir. Feb.
21, 2003)
1444.
LING NAN ZHENG, 2002 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 7826, 2002 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 151 (2d Cir. Nov. 1,
2002)
1445.
LING NAN ZHENG, 2002 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 7826, 2002 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 150 (2d Cir. Oct. 17,
2002)
1446.
SANTOS v. KNITGOODS, 2000 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs 9284, 2001 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 199 (2d Cir.
Jan. 5, 2001)
1447.
COLACICCO v. APOTEX, 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 847758, 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 1192 (3d
Cir. Nov. 30, 2006)
1448.
SWALLOWS HOLDING, LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs
3388, 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 2368 (3d Cir. Oct. 18, 2006)
1449.
COLACICCO v. APOTEX, 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 847758, 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 1187 (3d
Cir. Sept. 28, 2006)
1450.
COLACICCO v. APOTEX, 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 847758, 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 1195 (3d
Cir. Sept. 21, 2006)
1451.
RU v. UNITED STATES AG, 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 5512, 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 592 (3d Cir.
Apr. 28, 2006)
1452.
REGISTER v. PNC FIN. SERVS. GROUP, INC., 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 5445, 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 21 (3d Cir. Apr. 24, 2006)
Page 125
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1453.
BROCKAMP v. K.V. KONINKLIJKE NEDERLANDSCHE PETROLEUM MAATSCHAPPIJ, 2005 U.S. 3rd
Cir. Briefs 827382, 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 1037 (3d Cir. July 5, 2005)
1454.
UNITED STATES v. LANE LABS-USA, INC., 2004 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 3592, 2005 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 566 (3d Cir. Mar. 8, 2005)
1455.
JETER v. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP., 2003 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 4839, 2004 U.S. 3rd Cir.
Briefs LEXIS 60 (3d Cir. Apr. 28, 2004)
1456.
FORUM FOR ACADEMIC & INSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS v. RUMSFELD, 2006 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 4433,
2004 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 375 (3d Cir. Feb. 17, 2004)
1457.
SANTIAGO v. GMAC MORTG. GROUP, INC., 2003 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 4273, 2004 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 187 (3d Cir. Feb. 4, 2004)
1458.
MARIANA v. FISHER, 2002 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 2906, 2002 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 165 (3d Cir. Nov.
6, 2002)
1459.
BONNEVILLE INT'L CORP. v. PETERS, 2001 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 3720, 2002 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS
110 (3d Cir. Aug. 28, 2002)
1460.
Bonneville v. Peters, 2001 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 3720, 2002 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 108 (3d Cir. July 15,
2002)
1461.
TURICENTRO v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., 2001 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 3135, 2001 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 82 (3d Cir. Dec. 4, 2001)
1462.
TURICENTRO v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., 2001 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 3135, 2001 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 79 (3d Cir. Oct. 12, 2001)
1463.
DANNETT v. RESOURCES FOR HUMAN DEV., 1999 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 1821, 2000 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 171 (3d Cir. May 22, 2000)
1464.
DANNETT v. RESOURCES FOR HUMAN DEV., 1999 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs 1821, 2000 U.S. 3rd Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 172 (3d Cir. May 17, 2000)
1465.
AMERICAN ARMS INT'L v. ARTHUR W. HERBERT, 2008 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs 1302, 2008 U.S. 4th Cir.
Briefs LEXIS 476 (4th Cir. May 21, 2008)
1466.
Piedmont Envtl. Council v. FERC, 2007 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs 1651, 2008 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 157
(4th Cir. Feb. 25, 2008)
1467.
WATERHOUSE v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., 2005 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs 1482, 2005 U.S. 4th Cir.
Briefs LEXIS 47 (4th Cir. July 13, 2005)
1468.
UNITED STATES v. DUKE ENERGY CORP., 2004 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs 1763, 2005 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 29 (4th Cir. June 15, 2005)
1469.
UNITED STATES v. DUKE ENERGY CORP., 2004 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs 1763, 2004 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 141 (4th Cir. Nov. 12, 2004)
1470.
United States v. Duke Energy Corp., 2004 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs 1763, 2004 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 130
(4th Cir. Nov. 8, 2004)
1471.
UNITED STATES v. DUKE ENERGY CORP., 2004 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs 1763, 2004 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs
Page 126
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
LEXIS 139 (4th Cir. Oct. 18, 2004)
1472.
KENTUCKIANS FOR THE COMMONWEALTH, INC. v. RIVENBURGH, 2002 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs 1736,
2002 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 29 (4th Cir. Sept. 23, 2002)
1473.
KENTUCKIANS FOR THE COMMONWEALTH, INC. v. RIVENBURGH, 2002 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs 1736,
2002 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 54 (4th Cir. Sept. 23, 2002)
1474.
KENTUCKIANS FOR THE COMMONWEALTH, INC. v. RIVENBURGH, 2002 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs 1736,
2002 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 30 (4th Cir. Aug. 19, 2002)
1475.
KENTUCKIANS FOR THE COMMONWEALTH, INC. v. RIVENBURGH, 2002 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs 1736,
2002 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 31 (4th Cir. Aug. 14, 2002)
1476.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SHEET METAL WORKERS' NAT'L PENSION FUND v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 2002 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs 1273, 2002 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 8 (4th Cir. June 10, 2002)
1477.
COMMUNITY CARE v. LEAVITT, 2007 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 30306, 2007 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 375
(5th Cir. Oct. 4, 2007)
1478.
CODY v. PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORP., 2007 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 40651, 2007 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 398
(5th Cir. Sept. 13, 2007)
1479.
Ackermann vs. Wyeth Pharms., 2006 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 41774, 2007 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 46 (5th
Cir. June 21, 2007)
1480.
TINCY v. UNITED STATES, 2007 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 30089, 2007 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 23 (5th Cir.
June 6, 2007)
1481.
REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CALIFORNIA v. CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON INC., 2006 U.S. 5th Cir.
Briefs 20856, 2006 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 364 (5th Cir. Dec. 5, 2006)
1482.
BROWN v. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP., 2006 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 30311, 2006 U.S. 5th
Cir. Briefs LEXIS 8 (5th Cir. Apr. 27, 2006)
1483.
XCALIBER v. FOTI, 2005 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 30323, 2005 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 366 (5th Cir. July
12, 2005)
1484.
WELLS FARGO BANK OF TEXAS v. RANDALL S. JAMES, 2001 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 51298, 2002 U.S. 5th
Cir. Briefs LEXIS 145 (5th Cir. Apr. 18, 2002)
1485.
SIERRA CLUB v. U.S. EPA, 2001 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 60537, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 123 (5th Cir.
Feb. 5, 2002)
1486.
UNITED STATES v. SHOU HO, 2001 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 20460A, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 132
(5th Cir. Jan. 25, 2002)
1487.
SIERRA CLUB v. U.S. EPA, 2001 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 60537, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 121 (5th Cir.
Jan. 15, 2002)
1488.
SIERRA CLUB v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2001 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 60537, 2002 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS
122 (5th Cir. Jan. 15, 2002)
1489.
SIERRA CLUB v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2001 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 60537, 2001 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS
Page 127
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
43 (5th Cir. Dec. 28, 2001)
1490.
SIERRA CLUB v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2001 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 60537, 2001 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS
42 (5th Cir. Dec. 21, 2001)
1491.
TEXAS v. REAL PARTIES, 2000 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs 40999, 2001 U.S. 5th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 132 (5th Cir.
Jan. 12, 2001)
1492.
CITIZENS COAL COUNCIL v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2002 U.S. 6th Cir. Briefs 3628A, 2005 U.S. 6th Cir.
Briefs LEXIS 232 (6th Cir. Mar. 28, 2005)
1493.
OHIO PUB. INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP v. WHITMAN, 2002 U.S. 6th Cir. Briefs 3805, 2003 U.S. 6th
Cir. Briefs LEXIS 39 (6th Cir. Aug. 13, 2003)
1494.
GREENBAUM v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2001 U.S. 6th Cir. Briefs 3132A, 2002 U.S. 6th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 61 (6th Cir. May 3, 2002)
1495.
GREENBAUM v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2001 U.S. 6th Cir. Briefs 3132A, 2002 U.S. 6th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 62 (6th Cir. May 3, 2002)
1496.
BLOCH v. FRISCHHOLZ, 2006 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 3376, 2009 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 42 (7th Cir.
Jan. 16, 2009)
1497.
NEW PROCESS STEEL, L.P. v. NLRB, 2008 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 3517, 2009 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 12
(7th Cir. Jan. 9, 2009)
1498.
Pablo NEGRETE RODRIGUEZ v. GONZALES, 2006 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 255530, 2007 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 651 (7th Cir. May 30, 2007)
1499.
CAPTAIN v. ARS, 2006 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 678118, 2007 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 586 (7th Cir. Apr. 3,
2007)
1500.
ZACHAREVSKAJA v. CHERTOFF, 2006 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 3911, 2007 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 491
(7th Cir. Feb. 22, 2007)
1501.
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES, v. CSX TRANSP., INC., 2006 U.S. 7th Cir.
Briefs 288997, 2006 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 671 (7th Cir. Nov. 1, 2006)
1502.
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES, v. CSX TRANSP., INC., 2006 U.S. 7th Cir.
Briefs 288997, 2006 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 669 (7th Cir. Sept. 1, 2006)
1503.
GILLESPIE AND CINSON v. TRANS UNION, 2006 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 2576, 2006 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 552 (7th Cir. Aug. 14, 2006)
1504.
KELLY v. MARTIN & BAYLEY, INC., 2006 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 1756, 2006 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 816
(7th Cir. June 19, 2006)
1505.
KELLY v. MARTIN & BAYLEY, 2006 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 1756, 2006 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 18 (7th
Cir. May 26, 2006)
1506.
UNITED STATES v. 1,500/90 TABLET BOTTLES, 2005 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 987829, 2006 U.S. 7th Cir.
Briefs LEXIS 1098 (7th Cir. May 11, 2006)
1507.
UNITED STATES v. CINERGY, 2006 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 140880, 2006 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 210
(7th Cir. Mar. 29, 2006)
Page 128
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1508.
DIMAS MORENO-CEBRERO v. ALBERTO GONZALES, 2005 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 179149, 2006 U.S. 7th
Cir. Briefs LEXIS 1094 (7th Cir. Feb. 15, 2006)
1509.
UNITED STATES v. 1,500/90 TABLET BOTTLES, 2005 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 987829, 2006 U.S. 7th Cir.
Briefs LEXIS 1096 (7th Cir. Feb. 14, 2006)
1510.
KATHI v. IBM PERSONAL PENSION PLAN & IBM CORP., Defendants, 2005 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 3588,
2005 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 278 (7th Cir. Dec. 21, 2005)
1511.
KATHI v. IBM PERSONAL PENSION PLAN & IBM CORP., 2005 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 3588, 2005 U.S. 7th
Cir. Briefs LEXIS 434 (7th Cir. Dec. 20, 2005)
1512.
HARRELL v. USPS, 2003 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 9960, 2005 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 295 (7th Cir. Dec. 1,
2005)
1513.
KATHI v. IBM PERSONAL PENSION PLAN & IBM CORP., Defendants, 2005 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 3588,
2005 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 276 (7th Cir. Oct. 28, 2005)
1514.
KATHI v. IBM PERSONAL PENSION PLAN & IBM CORP., 2005 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 3588, 2005 U.S. 7th
Cir. Briefs LEXIS 432 (7th Cir. Oct. 27, 2005)
1515.
Frank H. Boomer v. AT&T Corp., 2002 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 2667, 2002 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 431 (7th
Cir. Aug. 14, 2002)
1516.
AMAX v. DIRECTOR, 2001 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 4226, 2002 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 204 (7th Cir. May
9, 2002)
1517.
SIERRA CLUB & MISSOURI COALITION v. EPA, 2001 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 2844, 2002 U.S. 7th Cir.
Briefs LEXIS 241 (7th Cir. Mar. 8, 2002)
1518.
SIERRA CLUB & MISSOURI COALITION v. EPA, 2001 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 2844, 2002 U.S. 7th Cir.
Briefs LEXIS 240 (7th Cir. Feb. 22, 2002)
1519.
SIERRA CLUB & MISSOURI COALITION v. EPA, 2001 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 2844, 2002 U.S. 7th Cir.
Briefs LEXIS 253 (7th Cir. Feb. 1, 2002)
1520.
SIERRA CLUB & MISSOURI COALITION v. EPA, 2001 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 2844, 2001 U.S. 7th Cir.
Briefs LEXIS 153 (7th Cir. Oct. 15, 2001)
1521.
SIERRA CLUB & MISSOURI COALITION v. EPA, 2001 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 2844, 2001 U.S. 7th Cir.
Briefs LEXIS 162 (7th Cir. Oct. 15, 2001)
1522.
UNITED STATES v. KRILICH, 2001 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 2746, 2001 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 99 (7th
Cir. Aug. 13, 2001)
1523.
GOBLE v. LUTHER, 2001 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs 1523, 2001 U.S. 7th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 393 (7th Cir. May
15, 2001)
1524.
COLLINS v. MISSOURI ELEC. COOPS. EMPLES. CREDIT UNION, 2007 U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs 1200, 2007
U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 366 (8th Cir. May 24, 2007)
1525.
GRAND RIVER ENTERPRISES SIX NATIONS v. BEEBE, 2006 U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs 2504, 2006 U.S. 8th
Cir. Briefs LEXIS 787 (8th Cir. Sept. 1, 2006)
Page 129
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1526.
Dahl & Huber v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 2006 U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs 1776, 2006 U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 638 (8th Cir. July 21, 2006)
1527.
BRANDI STANDRIDGE, et al., Appellees, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant. IN RE
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION, MDL No. 1597, 2006 U.S. 8th
Cir. Briefs 1706, 2006 U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 683 (8th Cir. June 20, 2006)
1528.
STANDRIDGE v. UNION PAC. R.R. CO., 2006 U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs 1706, 2006 U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs LEXIS
85 (8th Cir. May 8, 2006)
1529.
HENRY W. BOERNER, v. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CO., 2003 U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs 3557, 2004
U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 287 (8th Cir. Feb. 5, 2004)
1530.
HENRY W. BOERNER, v. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CO., 2003 U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs 3557, 2003
U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 216 (8th Cir. Dec. 5, 2003)
1531.
GROUP HEALTH PLAN v. PHILIP MORRIS INC., 2002 U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs 1684, 2002 U.S. 8th Cir.
Briefs LEXIS 278 (8th Cir. Aug. 9, 2002)
1532.
SHELTON v. UNITED STATES, 1999 U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs 1450, 2001 U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 113 (8th
Cir. June 18, 2001)
1533.
Shelton v. Consumer Prods. Safety Comm'n., 1999 U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs 1450, 2001 U.S. 8th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 121 (8th Cir. May 3, 2001)
1534.
DYER v. CENEX, 2007 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 73549, 2009 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 17 (9th Cir. Jan. 7,
2009)
1535.
DAVID H. LUTHER v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, 2008 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 55865,
2008 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 55 (9th Cir. July 1, 2008)
1536.
DAVID H. LUTHER v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, 2008 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 55865,
2008 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 53 (9th Cir. June 9, 2008)
1537.
AMALGAMATED SUGAR CO. LLC v. JOHANNS, 2007 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 35971, 2008 U.S. 9th Cir.
Briefs LEXIS 260 (9th Cir. Mar. 3, 2008)
1538.
LANDS COUNCIL v. MARTIN, 2007 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 35804, 2007 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 663 (9th
Cir. Dec. 20, 2007)
1539.
NORTHWEST ENVTL. ADVOCATES v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2003 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 74795, 2007 U.S.
9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 656 (9th Cir. June 29, 2007)
1540.
NORTHWEST ENVTL. ADVOCATES v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2003 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 74795, 2007 U.S.
9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 653 (9th Cir. May 30, 2007)
1541.
NORTHWEST ENVTL. ADVOCATES v.UNITED STATES EPA, 2003 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 74795, 2007 U.S.
9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 659 (9th Cir. May 29, 2007)
1542.
NORTHWEST ENVTL. ADVOCATES v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2003 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 74795, 2007 U.S.
9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 657 (9th Cir. May 1, 2007)
1543.
NORTHWEST ENVTL. ADVOCATES v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2003 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 74795, 2007 U.S.
9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 655 (9th Cir. Apr. 20, 2007)
Page 130
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1544.
NORTHWEST ENVTL. ADVOCATES v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2003 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 74795, 2007 U.S.
9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 654 (9th Cir. Mar. 22, 2007)
1545.
FALL RIVER RURAL ELEC. COOP. v. FERC, 2006 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 71944, 2007 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 775 (9th Cir. Mar. 19, 2007)
1546.
NORTHWEST ENVTL. ADVOCATES v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2003 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 74795, 2007 U.S.
9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 652 (9th Cir. Mar. 13, 2007)
1547.
NORTHWEST ENVTL. ADVOCATES v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2003 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 74795, 2007 U.S.
9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 658 (9th Cir. Mar. 12, 2007)
1548.
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2006 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 73217,
2007 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 363 (9th Cir. Mar. 8, 2007)
1549.
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2006 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 73217,
2007 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 372 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2007)
1550.
STATE v. FERC, 2006 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 74506, 2006 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 651 (9th Cir. Dec. 26,
2006)
1551.
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2006 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 73217,
2006 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 587 (9th Cir. Nov. 17, 2006)
1552.
SOUTHEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION COUNCIL v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENG'RS,
2006 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 704138, 2006 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 246 (9th Cir. Nov. 1, 2006)
1553.
CETACEAN COMMUNITY v. BUSH, 2003 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 15866, 2004 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS
170 (9th Cir. May 24, 2004)
1554.
REYNOLDS v. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO., 2003 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 35695, 2004 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 152 (9th Cir. May 6, 2004)
1555.
REYNOLDS v. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO., 2003 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 35695, 2004 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 151 (9th Cir. Mar. 22, 2004)
1556.
MATHEW RAUSCH & REYNOLDS v. HARTFORD FIN. SERVS. GROUP, 2003 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 35695,
2004 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 150 (9th Cir. Mar. 15, 2004)
1557.
MATTHEW RAUSCH & REYNOLDS v. HARTFORD FIN. SERVS. GROUP, 2003 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs
35695, 2004 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 149 (9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2004)
1558.
WICKERSHAM v. HASELWOOD, 2003 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 5707, 2003 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 75 (9th
Cir. Nov. 24, 2003)
1559.
EEOC v. PEABODY COAL CO., 2002 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 17305, 2003 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 142 (9th
Cir. Apr. 23, 2003)
1560.
MOTUS v. PFIZER, 2002 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 55372, 2003 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 144 (9th Cir. Apr.
16, 2003)
1561.
Davis v. EPA, 2001 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 71356, 2002 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 117 (9th Cir. Oct. 10,
2002)
1562.
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL v. EVANS, 2001 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 17143, 2002 U.S. 9th
Page 131
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
Cir. Briefs LEXIS 136 (9th Cir. May 10, 2002)
1563.
KOOTENAI TRIBE OF IDAHO v. VENEMAN, 2001 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 35472, 2001 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 77 (9th Cir. June 28, 2001)
1564.
BANK OF AMERICA v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, 2000 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 16355, 2000 U.S. 9th Cir.
Briefs LEXIS 228 (9th Cir. Dec. 15, 2000)
1565.
PRONSOLINO v. MARCUS, 2000 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 16026, 2000 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 71 (9th Cir.
Dec. 4, 2000)
1566.
BANK OF AMERICA v. CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 2000 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 16355, 2000
U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 226 (9th Cir. Nov. 9, 2000)
1567.
BANK OF AMERICA v. CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 2000 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 16355, 2000
U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 224 (9th Cir. Oct. 30, 2000)
1568.
PRONSOLINO v. FELICA, 2000 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 16026, 2000 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 49 (9th Cir.
Oct. 3, 2000)
1569.
In re CHAPMAN, 2000 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 1124, 2000 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 392 (9th Cir. Oct. 2,
2000)
1570.
PRONSOLINO v. MARCUS, 2000 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 16026, 2000 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 48 (9th Cir.
Sept. 25, 2000)
1571.
ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON PUB. HOSP. DISTS. v. PHILIP MORRIS INC., 2000 U.S. 9th Cir.
Briefs 35117, 2000 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 220 (9th Cir. May 4, 2000)
1572.
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO. v. DIANA M. BONTA, Dir. of the California, Dep't of Health Servs., 2004
U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 47 (9th Cir. May 10, 2004)
1573.
EEOC v. PEABODY COAL CO., 2003 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 69 (9th Cir. May 23, 2003)
1574.
QWEST v. PUC OF COLORADO, 2006 U.S. 10th Cir. Briefs 305034, 2006 U.S. 10th Cir. Briefs LEXIS
470 (10th Cir. Sept. 6, 2006)
1575.
QWEST v. PUC OF COLORADO, 2006 U.S. 10th Cir. Briefs 305034, 2006 U.S. 10th Cir. Briefs LEXIS
467 (10th Cir. June 23, 2006)
1576.
NUTRACEUTICAL v. ESCHENBACH, Acting Comm'r, U.S. FDA, 2005 U.S. 10th Cir. Briefs 4151, 2005
U.S. 10th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 42 (10th Cir. Oct. 4, 2005)
1577.
Sierra Club v. Seabord Farms, Inc., 2003 U.S. 10th Cir. Briefs 6104, 2003 U.S. 10th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 146
(10th Cir. Aug. 18, 2003)
1578.
BURTON v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., 2002 U.S. 10th Cir. Briefs 3262, 2003 U.S. 10th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 104 (10th Cir. June 23, 2003)
1579.
BURTON v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., 2002 U.S. 10th Cir. Briefs 3262, 2003 U.S. 10th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 44 (10th Cir. Feb. 11, 2003)
1580.
SKULL VALLEY BAND v. LEAVITT, 2003 U.S. 10th Cir. Briefs 4149, 2003 U.S. 10th Cir. Briefs LEXIS
144 (10th Cir. Feb. 6, 2003)
Page 132
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1581.
SKULL VALLEY BAND v. LEAVITT, 2003 U.S. 10th Cir. Briefs 4149, 2003 U.S. 10th Cir. Briefs LEXIS
143 (10th Cir. Jan. 3, 2003)
1582.
SKULL VALLEY BAND v. LEAVITT, 2003 U.S. 10th Cir. Briefs 4149, 2002 U.S. 10th Cir. Briefs LEXIS
160 (10th Cir. Oct. 22, 2002)
1583.
UNITED STATES v. POWER ENG'G CO., 2001 U.S. 10th Cir. Briefs 1217, 2001 U.S. 10th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 144 (10th Cir. Nov. 13, 2001)
1584.
FRIENDS OF THE EVERGLADES v. SOUTH, 2007 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs 13829, 2008 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 157 (11th Cir. Feb. 19, 2008)
1585.
FRIENDS OF THE EVERGLADES v. SOUTH, 2007 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs 13829, 2008 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 153 (11th Cir. Feb. 11, 2008)
1586.
FLORIDA HABILITATION NETWORK v. BUCKNER, 2006 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs 11032, 2006 U.S. 11th
Cir. Briefs LEXIS 126 (11th Cir. Mar. 22, 2006)
1587.
EQUIFAX INFO, SERVS. v. NUNNALLY, 2005 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs 12019, 2005 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 240 (11th Cir. Sept. 19, 2005)
1588.
EQUIFAX INFO., SERVS. v. NUNNALLY, 2005 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs 12019, 2005 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 239 (11th Cir. Sept. 6, 2005)
1589.
SOUTHERN ORG. COMM. FOR SOC. & ECONOMIC JUSTICE v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2002 U.S. 11th
Cir. Briefs 13486, 2002 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 142 (11th Cir. Oct. 24, 2002)
1590.
SOUTHERN ORG. COMM. v. U.S. EPA, 2002 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs 13486, 2002 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 4 (11th Cir. Oct. 15, 2002)
1591.
Southern Org. Comm. v. U.S. EPA, 2002 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs 13486, 2002 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 3
(11th Cir. Sept. 1, 2002)
1592.
Sierra Club v. U.S. EPA, 2002 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs 11188, 2002 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 129 (11th Cir.
July 3, 2002)
1593.
SIERRA CLUB v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2002 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs 11188, 2002 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 128 (11th Cir. June 27, 2002)
1594.
SIERRA CLUB v. U.S. EPA, 2002 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs 11188, 2002 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 126 (11th
Cir. June 26, 2002)
1595.
Sierra Club v. EPA, 2002 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs 11188, 2002 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 127 (11th Cir.
June 26, 2002)
1596.
Sierra Club v. U.S. EPA, 2002 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs 11188, 2002 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 125 (11th Cir.
May 8, 2002)
1597.
BURTON v. TAMPA HOUS. AUTH., 2000 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs 13607, 2001 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs LEXIS
82 (11th Cir. May 21, 2001)
1598.
BURTON v. TAMPA HOUS. AUTH., 2000 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs 13607, 2001 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs LEXIS
79 (11th Cir. Mar. 20, 2001)
1599.
BURTON v. TAMPA HOUS. AUTH., 2000 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs 13607, 2001 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs LEXIS
Page 133
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
78 (11th Cir. Feb. 22, 2001)
1600.
TVA v. BROWNER, 2000 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs 15936, 2001 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 83 (11th Cir. Jan.
29, 2001)
1601.
TVA v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2000 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs 12310, 2000 U.S. 11th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 76
(11th Cir. Oct. 31, 2000)
1602.
AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUC. v. FCC, 2005 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 1404, 2006 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 44 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 20, 2006)
1603.
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLES. UNION v. CHERTOFF, 2005 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 5436A, 2006 U.S.
D.C. Cir. Briefs LEXIS 32 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 23, 2006)
1604.
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLES. UNION, v. CHERTOFF, 2005 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 5436A, 2005 U.S.
D.C. Cir. Briefs LEXIS 141 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 19, 2005)
1605.
FRONTIER PIPELINE CO. v. FERC, 2004 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 1343, 2005 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs LEXIS
171 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 1, 2005)
1606.
FRONTIER PIPELINE CO. v. FERC, 2004 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 1343, 2005 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs LEXIS
173 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 1, 2005)
1607.
FRONTIER PIPELINE CO. v. FERC, 2004 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 1343, 2005 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs LEXIS
174 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 1, 2005)
1608.
GOLDSTEIN v. SEC, 2004 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 1434, 2005 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs LEXIS 127 (D.C. Cir.
June 23, 2005)
1609.
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES SEC, 2004 U.S. D.C. Cir.
Briefs 1300C, 2005 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs LEXIS 110 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 16, 2005)
1610.
MASSACHUSETTS v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2003 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 1361, 2005 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 14 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 7, 2005)
1611.
MASSACHUSETTS v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2003 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 1361, 2005 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 39 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 31, 2005)
1612.
MASSACHUSETTS v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2003 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 1361, 2005 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 37 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 26, 2005)
1613.
MASSACHUSETTS v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2003 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 1361, 2005 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 38 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 25, 2005)
1614.
MASSACHUSETTS v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2003 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 1361, 2005 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 34 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 24, 2005)
1615.
MASSACHUSETTS v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2003 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 1361, 2005 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 35 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 24, 2005)
1616.
MASSACHUSETTS v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2003 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 1361, 2005 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 36 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 24, 2005)
1617.
CENTER FOR ENERGY & ECONOMIC DEV. v. EPA, 2003 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 1222, 2004 U.S. D.C.
Cir. Briefs LEXIS 37 (D.C. Cir. June 28, 2004)
Page 134
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1618.
CENTER FOR ENERGY & ECONOMIC DEV. v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2003 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 1222,
2004 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs LEXIS 43 (D.C. Cir. June 24, 2004)
1619.
Safe Food & Fertilizer v. EPA, 2002 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 1326, 2003 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs LEXIS 71 (D.C.
Cir. Aug. 18, 2003)
1620.
In re: VERIZON INTERNET SERVS., INC., 2003 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 7015, 2003 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 10 (D.C. Cir. May 12, 2003)
1621.
In re: VERIZON INTERNET SERVS. INC., 2003 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 7015, 2003 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 42 (D.C. Cir. May 12, 2003)
1622.
SAFE FOOD & FERTILIZER v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2002 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 1326, 2003 U.S. D.C.
Cir. Briefs LEXIS 107 (D.C. Cir. May 6, 2003)
1623.
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2002 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 1123, 2003 U.S. D.C. Cir.
Briefs LEXIS 50 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 20, 2003)
1624.
CITIZENS COAL COUNCIL v. NORTON, 2002 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 5136, 2002 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 173 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 27, 2002)
1625.
JACOBY v. NLRB, 2001 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 1470, 2002 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs LEXIS 37 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 8,
2002)
1626.
CITIZENS COAL COUNCIL v. NORTON, 2002 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 5136, 2002 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 163 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 6, 2002)
1627.
GERBER v. NORTON, 2001 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 5247, 2002 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs LEXIS 107 (D.C. Cir.
July 2, 2002)
1628.
GERBER v. NORTON, 2001 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 5247, 2002 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs LEXIS 112 (D.C. Cir.
Mar. 8, 2002)
1629.
KPMG LLP, v. SEC, 2001 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 1131, 2002 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs LEXIS 96 (D.C. Cir. Jan.
22, 2002)
1630.
SIERRA CLUB v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2001 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 1070, 2001 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 51 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 17, 2001)
1631.
SIERRA CLUB v. UNITED STATES EPA, 2001 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs 1070, 2001 U.S. D.C. Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 45 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 8, 2001)
1632.
TRIANTAFYLLOS v. DUDAS, 2008 U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs 1352, 2008 U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs LEXIS 85 (Fed.
Cir. Oct. 15, 2008)
1633.
TRIANTAFYLLOS v. DUDAS, 2008 U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs 1352, 2008 U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs LEXIS 93 (Fed.
Cir. Sept. 24, 2008)
1634.
In re Warsaw, 2007 U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs 1130, 2008 U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs LEXIS 31 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7,
2008)
1635.
In re Warsaw, 2007 U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs 1130, 2008 U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs LEXIS 69 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7,
2008)
Page 135
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1636.
LACAVERA v. TOUPIN, 2005 U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs 1204, 2005 U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs LEXIS 269 (Fed. Cir.
July 19, 2005)
1637.
GILDA INDUS., INC. v. UNITED STATES, 2005 U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs 1384A, 2005 U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs
LEXIS 574 (Fed. Cir. July 11, 2005)
1638.
NORFOLK DREDGING CO. v. UNITED STATES, 2004 U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs 5040A, 2004 U.S. Fed. Cir.
Briefs LEXIS 510 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2004)
1639.
NORFOLK DREDGING CO. v. UNITED STATES, 2004 U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs 5040A, 2003 U.S. Fed. Cir.
Briefs LEXIS 401 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 16, 2003)
1640.
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO., INC. v. UNITED STATES, 2003 U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs 5137, 2003
U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs LEXIS 374 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2003)
1641.
PFIZER v. REDDY'S, 2003 U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs 1227, 2003 U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs LEXIS 219 (Fed. Cir.
Mar. 24, 2003)
1642.
KINIK v. ITC, 2002 U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs 1550, 2003 U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs LEXIS 135 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13,
2003)
1643.
MONSANTO v. HOMAN, 2001 U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs 1390A, 2001 U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs LEXIS 74 (Fed. Cir.
Nov. 20, 2001)
1644.
MONSANTO v. HOMAN, 2001 U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs 1390A, 2001 U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs LEXIS 72 (Fed. Cir.
Sept. 6, 2001)
1645.
In re: DIAL A MATTRESS OPERATING CORP., 2000 U.S. Fed. Cir. Briefs 1197, 2000 U.S. Fed. Cir.
Briefs LEXIS 7 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2000)
1646.
In re EDWARDS, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs 3159, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 695 (N.D. Ill. June 27,
2007)
1647.
In re ENRON CORP., 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs 7828, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1335 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 12, 2007)
1648.
In re Gregory H. Horr, Wendy C. Horr v. Jake Sweeney Smartmart, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs 805655,
2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 340 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 23, 2007)
1649.
In re ENRON CORP., 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs 7828, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2934 (S.D.N.Y.
Oct. 10, 2006)
1650.
UNITED STATES v. PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., 1999 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs 2496C, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 1355 (D.D.C. Sept. 29, 2005)
1651.
UNITED STATES v. PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., 1999 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs 2496C, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 1351 (D.D.C. Sept. 16, 2005)
1652.
UNITED STATES v. PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., 1999 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs 2496, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 99 (D.D.C. Sept. 13, 2005)
1653.
UNITED STATES v. PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., 1999 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs 2496C, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 1350 (D.D.C. Sept. 13, 2005)
1654.
UNITED STATES v. PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., 1999 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs 2496, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Page 136
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
Briefs LEXIS 101 (D.D.C. Sept. 7, 2005)
1655.
UNITED STATES v. PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., 1999 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs 2496C, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 1349 (D.D.C. Sept. 7, 2005)
1656.
UNITED STATES v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., 1999 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs 2496C, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 1358 (D.D.C. Sept. 1, 2005)
1657.
UNITED STATES v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., 1999 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs 2496D, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 1375 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2005)
1658.
VAN BUREN INDUS. INVESTORS v. JAMES BRONCE HENDERSON, III, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs 108,
2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 771 (M.D. Fla. July 11, 2005)
1659.
VAN BUREN INDUS. INVESTORS, LLC & 6700 DEV. ASSOCS., LLC v. JAMES BRONCE HENDERSON,
III, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs 108, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 769 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 13, 2005)
1660.
WILDLAW v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERV., 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs 682, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 670 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 1, 2004)
1661.
DARCY TING v. AT&T, 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs 2969, 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 22 (N.D. Cal.
Dec. 3, 2001)
1662.
In re PW, 2007 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Briefs 71176, 2007 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 346 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Oct.
25, 2007)
1663.
GODFREY v. ALASKA, 2005 AK S. Ct. Briefs 11894, 2005 AK S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 281 (Alaska Oct. 26,
2005)
1664.
VALER v. REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CALIFORNIA, 2007 CA App. Ct. Briefs 37651, 2008 CA App.
Ct. Briefs LEXIS 634 (Cal. App. Feb. 15, 2008)
1665.
LEONG v. REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CALIFORNIA, 2006 CA App. Ct. Briefs 14650, 2008 CA App.
Ct. Briefs LEXIS 533 (Cal. App. Feb. 7, 2008)
1666.
LORILLARD v. AMERICAN LEGACY FOUND., 2006 DE S. Ct. Briefs 2530, 2006 DE S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
53 (Del. Feb. 10, 2006)
1667.
LIGGETT v. DAVIS, 2008 FL S. Ct. Briefs 541, 2008 FL S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 776 (Fla. Aug. 1, 2008)
1668.
LIGGETT v. DAVIS, 2008 FL S. Ct. Briefs 541, 2008 FL S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 517 (Fla. June 11, 2008)
1669.
ENGLE v. LIGGETT, 2003 FL S. Ct. Briefs 1856A, 2004 FL S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1172 (Fla. July 17, 2004)
1670.
PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. v. ARNITZ, 2005 FL App. Ct. Briefs 826, 2005 FL App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 194
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2005)
1671.
PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. v. ARNITZ, 2005 FL App. Ct. Briefs 826, 2005 FL App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 195
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. July 21, 2005)
1672.
PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. v. ARNITZ, 2005 FL App. Ct. Briefs 8262D, 2005 FL App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
308 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. July 15, 2005)
1673.
LIGGETT v. DAVIS, 2004 FL App. Ct. Briefs 737681, 2005 FL App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 485 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
App. 4th Dist. May 25, 2005)
Page 137
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1674.
LIGGETT v. DAVIS, 2004 FL App. Ct. Briefs 737681, 2005 FL App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 484 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
App. 4th Dist. Mar. 28, 2005)
1675.
LIGGETT v. DAVIS, 2004 FL App. Ct. Briefs 737681, 2005 FL App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 483 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
App. 4th Dist. Feb. 9, 2005)
1676.
LIGGETT v. ENGLE, 2000 FL App. Ct. Briefs 3400, 2002 FL App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 36 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
App. Sept. 25, 2002)
1677.
LIGGETT v. ENGLE, 2000 FL App. Ct. Briefs 3400, 2002 FL App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 67 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
App. June 7, 2002)
1678.
LIGGETT v. ENGLE, 2000 FL App. Ct. Briefs 3400, 2001 FL App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 20 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
App. Nov. 26, 2001)
1679.
KIENKER & KIENKER v. BAUER, 2003 HI S. Ct. Briefs 25856, 2003 HI S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 14 (Haw.
Dec. 17, 2003)
1680.
KIENKER v. BAUER, 2003 HI S. Ct. Briefs 25856, 2003 HI S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 12 (Haw. Oct. 8, 2003)
1681.
STATE v. MAYBEE, 2008 ID S. Ct. Briefs 35200, 2008 ID S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 100 (Idaho Oct. 31, 2008)
1682.
PRICE v. PHILIP MORRIS INC., 2005 IL S. Ct. Briefs 96236, 2004 IL S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1 (Ill. July 19,
2004)
1683.
LIGGETT GROUP, INC. v. COMMONWEALTH & VIBO CORPORATON, 2006 KY App. Ct. Briefs 359,
2006 KY App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 179 (Ky. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2006)
1684.
BADON v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., 2005 LA App. Ct. Briefs 1048, 2005 LA App. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 189 (La.App. Oct. 17, 2005)
1685.
BADON v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., 2005 LA App. Ct. Briefs 1048, 2005 LA App. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 188 (La.App. Sept. 6, 2005)
1686.
BARRINGTON v. GATEWAY, INC., 2008 MD Sp. App. Ct. Briefs 537, 2008 MD Sp. App. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 976 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 18, 2008)
1687.
BARRINGTON v. GATEWAY, INC., 2008 MD Sp. App. Ct. Briefs 537, 2008 MD Sp. App. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 1434 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 18, 2008)
1688.
ASPINALL v. PHILIP MORRIS, INC., 2007 MA S. Ct. Briefs 9981, 2007 MA S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 188
(Mass. May 29, 2007)
1689.
EXPEDITO v. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, 2007 MA S. Ct. Briefs 9922, 2007 MA S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 205 (Mass. Feb. 6, 2007)
1690.
BULGER v. CONTRIBUTORY RETIREMENT APPEAL BD., 2006 MA S. Ct. Briefs 9736, 2006 MA S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 18 (Mass. Aug. 4, 2006)
1691.
HAGLUND v. PHILIP MORRIS INC., 2006 MA App. Ct. Briefs 9483, 2005 MA App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 71
(Mass. App. Ct. May 31, 2005)
1692.
COUNCIL OF INDEP. TOBACCO MFRS. OF AMERICA v. STATE OF MINNESOTA & DAN
SALOMONE, 2003 MN S. Ct. Briefs 2020, 2004 MN S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 8 (Minn. Dec. 16, 2004)
Page 138
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1693.
BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP. v. LINCOLN, 2007 MO S. Ct. Briefs 88685, 2007 MO S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 252 (Mo. Dec. 7, 2007)
1694.
LINCLN v. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP., 2007 MO S. Ct. Briefs 88685, 2007 MO S. Ct.
Briefs LEXIS 238 (Mo. Oct. 26, 2007)
1695.
BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP. v. MICHAEL S. THOMPSON & CHRISTI THOMPSON,
2006 MO App. Ct. Briefs 63897, 2005 MO App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 214 (Mo. Ct. App. June 27, 2005)
1696.
BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP. v. MICHAEL S. THOMPSON & CHRISTI THOMPSON,
2005 MO App. Ct. Briefs 63897, 2005 MO App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 4 (Mo. Ct. App. June 27, 2005)
1697.
BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP. v. MICHAEL S. THOMPSON & CHRISTI THOMPSON,
2005 MO App. Ct. Briefs 63897, 2005 MO App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 5 (Mo. Ct. App. May 27, 2005)
1698.
BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP. v. MICHAEL S. THOMPSON & CHRISTI THOMPSON,
2006 MO App. Ct. Briefs 63897, 2005 MO App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 213 (Mo. Ct. App. May 25, 2005)
1699.
STATE v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO, CO., 2003 OH S. Ct. Briefs 860, 2003 OH S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 38
(Ohio Dec. 15, 2003)
1700.
PETRO v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., 2003 OH S. Ct. Briefs 860, 2003 OH S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 36
(Ohio Nov. 14, 2003)
1701.
SCHWARZ v. PHILIP MORRIS INC., 2003 OR App. Ct. Briefs 118589, 2004 OR App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS
272 (Or. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2004)
1702.
ESTATE OF MICHELLE SCHWARZ v. PHILIP MORRIS, INC., 2003 OR App. Ct. Briefs 118589, 2003 OR
App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 15 (Or. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2003)
1703.
ESTATE OF MICHELLE SCHWARZ v. PHILIP MORRIS INC., 2003 OR App. Ct. Briefs 118589, 2003 OR
App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 14 (Or. Ct. App. June 4, 2003)
1704.
DECHERT v. COMMONWEALTH, 2008 PA S. Ct. Briefs 529550, 2008 PA S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 165 (Pa.
June 23, 2008)
1705.
NORTHBROOK LIFE INS. CO. v. PENNSYLVANIA, 2006 PA S. Ct. Briefs 498058, 2007 PA S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 43 (Pa. Jan. 12, 2007)
1706.
NORTHBROOK LIFE INS. CO. v. PENNSYLVANIA, 2006 PA S. Ct. Briefs 498058, 2007 PA S. Ct. Briefs
LEXIS 55 (Pa. Jan. 12, 2007)
1707.
HOME BLDRS. ASS'N OF CHESTER & DELAWARE COUNTIES v. PENNSYLVANIA, 2003 PA S. Ct.
Briefs 2003, 2003 PA S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 9 (Pa. Sept. 29, 2003)
1708.
INTERNATIONAL ASS'N FOR COLON HYDROTHERAPY & CLASS 3 STUDY GROUP v. STATE OF
TEXAS, 2007 TX App. Ct. Briefs 1046, 2008 TX App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1768 (Tex. App. June 6, 2008)
1709.
DARRELL V. McGRAW ex rel. STATE, 2008 WV S. Ct. Briefs 33873, 2008 WV S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 192
(W. Va. Dec. 1, 2008)
MOTIONS ( 199 Citing Motions )
1710.
DIMAS MORENO-CEBRERO v. ALBERTO GONZALES, 2005 U.S. 7th Cir. Motions 179149, 2006 U.S.
Page 139
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
7th Cir. Motions LEXIS 8 (7th Cir. Feb. 15, 2006)
1711.
LA UNION DEL PUEBLO ENTERO v. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MGMT. AGENCY, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions 234044, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 6926 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2009)
1712.
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL v. U.S. CONSUMER PROD. SAFETY COMM'N, 2008 U.S.
Dist. Ct. Motions 10507, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 4977 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2009)
1713.
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL v. U.S. CONSUMER PROD. SAFETY COMM'N, 2008 U.S.
Dist. Ct. Motions 10507, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 4979 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2009)
1714.
FRIENDS OF ANIMALS v. KEMPTHORNE, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 454479, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 11752 (D.D.C. Jan. 23, 2009)
1715.
WYETH HOLDINGS CORP. v. U.S. HHS, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 641459, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 77508 (D.D.C. Nov. 21, 2008)
1716.
LANDSMAN & FUNK, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 371755, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 77032
(W.D. Wis. Nov. 21, 2008)
1717.
VIBO v. CONWAY, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 571, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 53358 (W.D. Ky.
Nov. 14, 2008)
1718.
LA UNION DEL PUEBLO ENTERO v. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MGMT. AGENCY, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions 234044, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 71456 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 2008)
1719.
ATLANTIC RECORDING CORP. v. PROJECT PLAYLIST, INC., 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 83922, 2008
U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 63611 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2008)
1720.
SEMINOLE NATION OF OKLAHOMA, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 75904, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 74163 (E.D. Okla. Oct. 14, 2008)
1721.
UNITED STATES v. MENOMINEE TRIBAL ENTERPRISES, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 579219, 2008
U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 59100 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 1, 2008)
1722.
VIRGINIA v. LEAVITT Secy., 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 248332, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
74576 (D.D.C. Sept. 12, 2008)
1723.
WYETH HOLDINGS CORP. v. U.S. HHS, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 641459, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 77507 (D.D.C. Sept. 8, 2008)
1724.
MORRIS v. WYETH, INC., 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 579234, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 35457
(W.D. Ky. Aug. 1, 2008)
1725.
SMITH v. WYETH, INC., 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 103191, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 70121
(W.D. Ky. Aug. 1, 2008)
1726.
WILSON v. PLIVA, INC., 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 14415, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 35454
(W.D. Ky. Aug. 1, 2008)
1727.
AKIACHAK NATIVE COMMUNITY v. DOI, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 84891, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 28549 (D.D.C. July 25, 2008)
1728.
UNITED STATES ex rel. CASSADAY v. KBR, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 71485, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 52609 (S.D. Tex. July 10, 2008)
Page 140
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1729.
UNITED STATES v. Menominee TRIBAL ENTERPRISES, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 579219, 2008 U.S.
Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 59082 (E.D. Wis. June 25, 2008)
1730.
AKIACHAK NATIVE COMMUNITY v. DOI, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 84891, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 28545 (D.D.C. June 13, 2008)
1731.
CARTER v. NOVARTIS PHARMS. CORP., 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 772297, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 61859 (C.D. Cal. June 9, 2008)
1732.
AMERICAN ASS'N FOR HOMECARE v. LEAVITT, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 9925, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 18311 (D.D.C. June 9, 2008)
1733.
UNITED STATES v. MIDWEST TRANSP., INC., 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 64994, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 53324 (S.D. Ill. May 2, 2008)
1734.
CENTRAL VALLEY CHRYSLER-JEEP, INC. v. GOLDSTENE, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 984427, 2008
U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 10025 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2008)
1735.
Disability Law Ctr. of Alaska, Inc. v. North Star Behavioral Health Sys., 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
490016, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 26147 (D. Alaska Mar. 24, 2008)
1736.
TAFAS v. DUDAS, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 499716, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 757 (E.D. Va.
Feb. 1, 2008)
1737.
HUNTER v. FERC, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 766902, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 28560
(D.D.C. Jan. 22, 2008)
1738.
BAIG v. CATERISANO, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 71108, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 2581 (E.D.
Va. Jan. 14, 2008)
1739.
BAIG v. CATERISANO, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 7689, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 2582 (E.D.
Va. Jan. 14, 2008)
1740.
SIERRA FOREST PRODS. v. KEMPTHORNE, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 794592, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 73369 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2007)
1741.
RANCHERS CATTLEMEN ACTION LEGAL FUND UNITED STOCKGROWERS OF AMERICA v. USDA,
2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1023, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 74979 (D.S.D. Nov. 21, 2007)
1742.
In re IMAGITAS, INC., DRIVERS' PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT LITIG., 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
899302, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 58244 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2007)
1743.
UNITED STATES v. UNION PAC. R.R. CO., 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 61740, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 62412 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2007)
1744.
SCHERING-PLOUGH HEALTHCARE PRODS. v. SCHWARZ PHARMA, INC., 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
55882, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 55275 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 2, 2007)
1745.
TRIANTAFYLLOS TAFAS v. DUDAS, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 846, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
20536 (E.D. Va. Oct. 30, 2007)
1746.
Gupton v. Leavitt, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 221675, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 76907 (E.D.
Tenn. Oct. 5, 2007)
Page 141
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1747.
HUNTER v. FERC, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1307, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 35315 (D.D.C.
Oct. 3, 2007)
1748.
Ware v. Indymac Bank, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 71982, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 45039
(N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 2007)
1749.
BUCHANAN v. WYETH, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2042, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 43905
(N.D. Ohio Sept. 21, 2007)
1750.
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY v. KEMPTHORNE, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1339, 2007 U.S.
Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 67746 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2007)
1751.
RICHARDSON v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 70834, 2007 U.S. Dist.
Ct. Motions LEXIS 77447 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 19, 2007)
1752.
BROOK VILLAGE NORTH ASSOCS. v. JACKSON, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 794453, 2007 U.S. Dist.
Ct. Motions LEXIS 78719 (D.N.H. Aug. 16, 2007)
1753.
UNITED STATES v. Arant, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 96550, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 17117
(W.D. Wash. July 18, 2007)
1754.
DOBBS v. WYETH, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1762, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 38513 (W.D.
Okla. July 16, 2007)
1755.
GEORGE v. DUKE ENERGY, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 634974, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
75163 (D.S.C. July 11, 2007)
1756.
UNITED STATES v. SENSIENT, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1275, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
34878 (D.N.J. June 29, 2007)
1757.
REED v. RILEY, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 968821, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 68025 (M.D.
Ala. June 28, 2007)
1758.
FOUR SEASONS SPORTS, INC. v. BOWERS, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 585196, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 89904 (E.D.N.C. May 25, 2007)
1759.
HUNTER v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 832270, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 6988 (D. Alaska May 7, 2007)
1760.
MYLAN LABS. v. LEAVITT, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 848384, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 6336
(D.D.C. Apr. 27, 2007)
1761.
MYLAN v. LEAVITT, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 579, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 2620 (D.D.C.
Apr. 27, 2007)
1762.
UNITED STATES v. WATER SUPPLY & STORAGE CO., 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1728, 2007 U.S.
Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 73898 (D. Colo. Apr. 17, 2007)
1763.
MYLAN v. LEAVITT, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 848384, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 6326
(D.D.C. Apr. 16, 2007)
1764.
MYLAN v. LEAVITT, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 579, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 2609 (D.D.C.
Apr. 16, 2007)
1765.
MYLAN LABS. v. LEAVITT, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 848384, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 6324
Page 142
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
(D.D.C. Apr. 13, 2007)
1766.
HUNTER v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 832270, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 6985 (D. Alaska Apr. 11, 2007)
1767.
HUNTER v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 832270, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 6986 (D. Alaska Apr. 11, 2007)
1768.
JOHN DOE # 1, v. ESCHENBACH, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 83226, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
40339 (D.D.C. Apr. 11, 2007)
1769.
NEBRASKA BEEF, LTD. v. USDA, 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 174, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
34882 (D. Neb. Mar. 30, 2007)
1770.
RED'S TRADING POST, INC. v. VAN LOAN, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 158759, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 45365 (D. Idaho Mar. 20, 2007)
1771.
NORTON CONSTR. CO. v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENG'RS & COLONEL DANA R. HURST,
2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2257, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 50835 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 15, 2007)
1772.
GILES v. WYETH, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 114312, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 613 (S.D. Ill.
Mar. 9, 2007)
1773.
UNITED STATES v. CAP QUALITY CARE, INC., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 33687, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 3235 (D. Me. Jan. 12, 2007)
1774.
Phillips v. IRS, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2719, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 8814 (D. Ariz. Jan. 5,
2007)
1775.
LIBERTY MUT. INS. CO. v. UNITED STATES, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 11048, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 36859 (D. Mass. Jan. 5, 2007)
1776.
API v. JOHNSON, 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 972941, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 69962 (D.D.C.
Dec. 20, 2006)
1777.
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO. v. SEATTLE-KING COUNTY DEP'T OF PUB. HEALTH, 2006 U.S. Dist.
Ct. Motions 33730, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 34146 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 18, 2006)
1778.
MULHOLLAND v. PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 9908, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 47866 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2006)
1779.
CENTRAL VALLEY CHRYSLER-JEEP, INC. v. WITHERSPOON, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 652457,
2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 68301 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2006)
1780.
KREY v. CASTLE MOTOR SALES, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 64173, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
41890 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 28, 2006)
1781.
AES SPARROWS POINT LNG, LLC v. SMITH, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 62478, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 38164 (D. Md. Nov. 27, 2006)
1782.
RINE v. IMAGITAS, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 60690, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 23097 (M.D.
Fla. Nov. 20, 2006)
1783.
CREEKSTONE v. USDA, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 989124, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 56744
(D.D.C. Nov. 3, 2006)
Page 143
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1784.
BRYERTON v. VERIZON COMMUNS. INC., 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 337821, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 58874 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2006)
1785.
In re: VIOXX PRODS. LIAB. LITIG., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 16571F, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 29276 (E.D. La. Oct. 27, 2006)
1786.
MULHOLLAND v. PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 9908, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 47863 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2006)
1787.
GROSS v. WASHINGTON MUT. BANK, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 420600, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 66953 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2006)
1788.
CAROLINA CAS. INS. CO. v. ESTATE OF ZINSMASTER, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 33C, 2006 U.S.
Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 33392 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2006)
1789.
UNITED STATES v. 5 unlabeled boxes, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 615459, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 57134 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 12, 2006)
1790.
SYKES v. GLAXO, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 487315, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 41981 (E.D.
Pa. Aug. 28, 2006)
1791.
SYKES v. GLAXO, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 487315, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 46564 (E.D.
Pa. Aug. 28, 2006)
1792.
WEISS v. ASTELLAS, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 527K, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 27174 (E.D.
Ky. Aug. 7, 2006)
1793.
WEISS v. ASTELLAS, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 527K, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 31277 (E.D.
Ky. Aug. 7, 2006)
1794.
Humane Soc'y of the United States v. Kempthorne, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1279D, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 35297 (D.D.C. Aug. 3, 2006)
1795.
SENECA-CAYUGA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA v. EDMONDSON, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 394E, 2006
U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 36440 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 3, 2006)
1796.
CONNECTICUT BAR ASS'N v. UNITED STATES, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 496944, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 74069 (D. Conn. July 10, 2006)
1797.
CONNECTICUT BAR ASS'N v. UNITED STATES, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 496944, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 74072 (D. Conn. July 10, 2006)
1798.
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO. v. MCKENNA, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 5223A, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 21178 (W.D. Wash. July 10, 2006)
1799.
WILLIAM J. NEESE & JOHNSON v. JOHANNS, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 71E, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 31078 (W.D. Va. July 7, 2006)
1800.
DRUTIS v. RAND, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 126166, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 54213 (E.D.
Ky. July 7, 2006)
1801.
CONNECTICUT BAR ASS'N v. UNITED STATES, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 496944, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 74068 (D. Conn. June 30, 2006)
Page 144
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1802.
CONNECTICUT BAR ASS'N v. UNITED STATES, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 496944, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 74071 (D. Conn. June 30, 2006)
1803.
In re PREMPRO PRODS. LIAB. LITIG., 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 90090, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 26217 (E.D. Ark. June 29, 2006)
1804.
In re J.P. MORGAN CHASE CASH BALANCE LITIG., 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 6732, 2006 U.S. Dist.
Ct. Motions LEXIS 32880 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2006)
1805.
Reeves v. Wyeth (In re PREMPRO PRODS. LIAB. LITIG.), 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 163497, 2006 U.S.
Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 11001 (E.D. Ark. June 5, 2006)
1806.
Reeves v. Wyeth (In re PREMPRO PRODS. LIAB. LITIG.), 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 163497, 2006 U.S.
Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 11007 (E.D. Ark. June 5, 2006)
1807.
Reeves v. Wyeth (In re PREMPRO PRODS. LIAB. LITIG.), 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 163497, 2006 U.S.
Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 10922 (E.D. Ark. June 5, 2006)
1808.
In re PREMPRO PRODS. LIAB. LITIG., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 88010, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 10205 (E.D. Ark. June 5, 2006)
1809.
In re PREMPRO PRODS. LIAB. LITIG., 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 90090, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 26209 (E.D. Ark. June 5, 2006)
1810.
NILDA v. PFIZER, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 22658, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 42039 (S.D.
Fla. May 17, 2006)
1811.
MULFORD v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 167552, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 46274 (D.N.M. May 5, 2006)
1812.
In re: BEXTRA & CELEBREX MKTG. SALES PRACTICES & PROD. LIAB. LITIG. v. Pfizer Inc., 2005
U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1699A, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 15692 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2006)
1813.
In re: BEXTRA & CELEBREX MKTG. SALES PRACTICES & PROD. LIAB. LITIG. v. PFIZER INC., 2005
U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1699A, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 15693 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2006)
1814.
JOHNSON v. JOHANNS, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 95210, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 2951
(W.D. Va. May 2, 2006)
1815.
WILLIAM J. NEESE & JOHNSON v. JOHANNS, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 71E, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 31068 (W.D. Va. May 2, 2006)
1816.
BROOK VILLAGE NORTH ASSOCS. v. JACKSON, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 416545, 2006 U.S. Dist.
Ct. Motions LEXIS 75323 (D.N.H. Apr. 21, 2006)
1817.
In re: VIOXX, PRODS. LIAB. LITIG., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1657C, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 15875 (E.D. La. Apr. 19, 2006)
1818.
In re: BEXTRA & CELEBREX MKTG. SALES PRACTICES & PROD. LIAB. LITIG., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions 1699, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 1206 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2006)
1819.
In re: BEXTRA & CELEBREX MKTG. SALES PRACTICES & PROD. LIAB. LITIG., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions 1699, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 1207 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2006)
1820.
In re: BEXTRA & CELEBREX MKTG. SALES PRACTICES & PROD. LIAB. LITIG. v. Pfizer Inc., 2005
Page 145
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1699A, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 15690 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2006)
1821.
In re: BEXTRA & CELEBREX MKTG. SALES PRACTICES & PROD. LIAB. LITIG. v. Pfizer Inc., 2005
U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1699A, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 15691 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2006)
1822.
UNITED STATES v. TANSKI, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 730550, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
69559 (N.D.N.Y Mar. 24, 2006)
1823.
INTERNATIONAL TOBACCO PARTNERS v. PHILL KLINE, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2319, 2006 U.S.
Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 43006 (D. Kan. Feb. 28, 2006)
1824.
INTERNATIONAL TOBACCO v. PHILL KLINE, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2319, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 43820 (D. Kan. Feb. 28, 2006)
1825.
EEOC v. Peabody Coal Co., 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 558070, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
54171 (D. Ariz. Feb. 17, 2006)
1826.
FREE ENTERPRISE FUND v. PUBLIC CO. ACCOUNTING OVERSIGHT BD., 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions 622773, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 88463 (D.D.C. Feb. 7, 2006)
1827.
DEBT BUYERS' ASS'N v. JOHN W. SNOW, Secy. of the Treasury, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 101B, 2006
U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 38462 (D.D.C. Jan. 23, 2006)
1828.
JACKSON v. PFIZER, INC., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 5780, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 536 (D.
Neb. Jan. 23, 2006)
1829.
TUOSTO v. PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 9384, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 63645 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2006)
1830.
DAVID G. JACKSON & DEBRA F. JACKSON, Special Administrator of the Estate of JACOB PAUL
JACKSON v. PFIZER, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 5780, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 10876 (D.
Neb. Dec. 21, 2005)
1831.
RANBAXY v. LEAVITT, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1838A, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 27048
(D.D.C. Dec. 12, 2005)
1832.
In re VIOXX PRODS. LIAB. LITIG., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 66470, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 20897 (E.D. La. Nov. 7, 2005)
1833.
RANBAXY v. LEAVITT, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1838A, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 27045
(D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2005)
1834.
ANNA JAQUES HOSP. v. LEAVITT, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 282996, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 39951 (D.D.C. Oct. 14, 2005)
1835.
STATE FARM BANK, F.S.B. v. BURKE, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 808A, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 21589 (D. Conn. Sept. 9, 2005)
1836.
APOTEX v. FDA, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 125, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 8872 (D.D.C. Sept.
2, 2005)
1837.
WELCH v. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP., 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 21590, 2005 U.S.
Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 23641 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 15, 2005)
1838.
PENNSYLVANIA EMPLE. BEN. TRUST FUND v. ZENECA, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 937933, 2005
Page 146
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 37058 (D. Del. Aug. 5, 2005)
1839.
APOTEX v. FDA, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 125, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 8871 (D.D.C. July
22, 2005)
1840.
SOUTHEAST ALABAMA MED. CTR. v. LEAVITT, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1143, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 40198 (D.D.C. July 22, 2005)
1841.
ORTIZ v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1883, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 23214 (D.P.R. June 14, 2005)
1842.
ORTIZ v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1883, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 23215 (D.P.R. June 14, 2005)
1843.
ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS-CWA v. PENSION BEN. GUAR. CORP., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions 1036E, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 29016 (D.D.C. May 20, 2005)
1844.
ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS-CWA v. PENSION BEN. GUAR. CORP., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions 1036B, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 19376 (D.D.C. May 20, 2005)
1845.
ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS-CWA v. PENSION BEN. GUAR. CORP., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions 1036B, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 20824 (D.D.C. May 20, 2005)
1846.
WELCH v. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP., 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 21590, 2005 U.S.
Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 23642 (N.D. Ala. May 19, 2005)
1847.
MAIN DRUG, INC. v. AETNA U.S. HEALTHCARE, INC., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 292, 2005 U.S. Dist.
Ct. Motions LEXIS 16387 (M.D. Ala. May 13, 2005)
1848.
S&M BRANDS, INC. v. SUMMERS, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 280391, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 40919 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 3, 2005)
1849.
RICHARDS v. FLEETBOSTON, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1638, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS
13255 (D. Conn. Jan. 25, 2005)
1850.
SOUTHEAST ALABAMA MED. CTR. v. THOMPSON, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1143, 2005 U.S. Dist.
Ct. Motions LEXIS 40195 (D.D.C. Jan. 13, 2005)
1851.
MASH v. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP., 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 485, 2004 U.S. Dist.
Ct. Motions LEXIS 20235 (E.D. Mo. June 18, 2004)
1852.
MASH v. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP., 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 485, 2004 U.S. Dist.
Ct. Motions LEXIS 20234 (E.D. Mo. June 5, 2004)
1853.
ANDREWS v. UNITED STATES HHS, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 141837, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 22610 (D.D.C. June 3, 2004)
1854.
UNITED STATES v. PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., 1999 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2496D, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 18308 (D.D.C. June 1, 2004)
1855.
UNITED STATES v. PHILIP MORRIS INC., 1999 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2496D, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 18307 (D.D.C. May 17, 2004)
1856.
MASH v. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP., 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 485, 2004 U.S. Dist.
Ct. Motions LEXIS 20233 (E.D. Mo. May 3, 2004)
Page 147
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1857.
UNITED STATES v. PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., 1999 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2496D, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 18371 (D.D.C. Apr. 15, 2004)
1858.
NVE v. U.S. HHS, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 999, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 6593 (D.N.J. Apr.
8, 2004)
1859.
UNITED STATES v. ACORN ENG'G CO., 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 5470, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 14648 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2004)
1860.
Xcaliber Int'l Ltd. v. Ieyoub, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 69C, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 18965
(E.D. La. Feb. 3, 2004)
1861.
SAUNDERS v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUT. INS. CO., 1997 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1105, 2003 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 14065 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 14, 2003)
1862.
SAUNDERS v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUT. INS. CO., 1997 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1105, 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 11705 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 23, 2002)
1863.
PUREPAC PHARM. CO. v. THOMPSON, 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 384543, 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 12654 (D.D.C. Nov. 26, 2002)
1864.
In re PAXIL LITIG., 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 7937A, 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 10367 (C.D.
Cal. Oct. 15, 2002)
1865.
BURTON v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO. & BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP., 1994 U.S.
Dist. Ct. Motions 2002, 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 7719 (D. Kan. Apr. 2, 2002)
1866.
BURTON v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO. & BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP., 1994 U.S.
Dist. Ct. Motions 2002, 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 7715 (D. Kan. Mar. 8, 2002)
1867.
BURTON v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO. & BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP., 1994 U.S.
Dist. Ct. Motions 2002, 2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 7712 (D. Kan. Feb. 14, 2002)
1868.
BURTON v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO. & BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP., 1994 U.S.
Dist. Ct. Motions 2002, 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 6733 (D. Kan. Dec. 12, 2001)
1869.
BURTON v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., 1994 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2002, 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 6729 (D. Kan. Oct. 19, 2001)
1870.
BONNEVILLE INT'L CORP. v. PETERS, 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 408, 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
LEXIS 6743 (E.D. Pa. June 15, 2001)
1871.
In re SIMON LITIG. v. PHILIP MORRIS, INC., 2000 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 5332, 2000 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 6443 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2000)
1872.
In re SIMON LITIG. v. PHILIP MORRIS, INC., 2000 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 5332, 2000 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Motions LEXIS 6828 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2000)
1873.
CHERRLYN v. CONSECO, 2000 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 4399, 2000 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 7260
(N.D. Ill. Oct. 3, 2000)
1874.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 1999 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
994817, 2000 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 6701 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2000)
Page 148
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1875.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 1999 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
994817, 2000 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 6709 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2000)
1876.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 1999 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
994817, 2000 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 6707 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2000)
1877.
In re CHRYSLER LLC,, 2009 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions 50002, 2009 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions LEXIS 750
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2009)
1878.
In re ONEIDA LTD., 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions 130638, 2007 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions LEXIS 6882
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2007)
1879.
In re ONEIDA LTD., 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions 130638, 2007 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions LEXIS 6880
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2007)
1880.
In re Masur, 2007 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions 40213, 2007 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions LEXIS 5325 (Bankr.
D.S.D. Sept. 12, 2007)
1881.
In re MAKRES, 2007 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions 10736, 2007 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions LEXIS 5441 (Bankr.
N.D. Okla. June 28, 2007)
1882.
In re WILKINS, 2007 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions 11180, 2007 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions LEXIS 798 (Bankr.
C.D. Cal. May 4, 2007)
1883.
In re PILARSKI, 2007 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions 30407, 2007 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions LEXIS 4881 (Bankr.
D. Minn. May 3, 2007)
1884.
In re Augenstein, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions 13867, 2007 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions LEXIS 5184 (Bankr.
N.D. Ohio Feb. 13, 2007)
1885.
In re WATSON, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions 72831, 2007 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions LEXIS 5025 (Bankr.
N.D. Ga. Jan. 8, 2007)
1886.
In re Haar, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions 31270, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions LEXIS 5557 (Bankr. N.D.
Ohio Dec. 1, 2006)
1887.
In re TRACY & BETH, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions 54764, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions LEXIS 4146
(Bankr. S.D. Ohio Nov. 20, 2006)
1888.
In re HARE, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions 10924, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions LEXIS 4771 (Bankr. E.D.
Cal. Nov. 8, 2006)
1889.
In re Hoerlein, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions 12159, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions LEXIS 8769 (Bankr.
S.D. Ohio Oct. 31, 2006)
1890.
In re HUMMEL, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions 68931, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions LEXIS 9962 (Bankr.
N.D. Ga. Oct. 26, 2006)
1891.
In re RANDLE, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions 5929, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions LEXIS 9139 (Bankr.
N.D. Ill. Oct. 25, 2006)
1892.
In re RANDLE, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions 5929, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions LEXIS 9672 (Bankr.
N.D. Ill. Oct. 25, 2006)
1893.
In re SORRELL, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions 61301, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions LEXIS 5593 (Bankr.
Page 149
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
S.D. Ohio Oct. 3, 2006)
1894.
In re BENEDETTI, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions 13003, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions LEXIS 5840
(Bankr. S.D. Fla. Sept. 7, 2006)
1895.
In re Sours, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions 311229, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions LEXIS 7149 (Bankr. E.D.
Va. Aug. 30, 2006)
1896.
IN RE: BRYAN CHRISTOPHER MCDANIEL, DEBTOR. FELICIA S. TURNER, UNITED STATES
TRUSTEE, MOVANT -vs- BRYAN CHRISTOPHER MCDANIEL, RESPONDENT., 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct.
Motions 62786, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions LEXIS 9744 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Aug. 18, 2006)
1897.
In re LONGO, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions 30781, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions LEXIS 4820 (Bankr. D.
Conn. July 31, 2006)
1898.
In re PALM, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions 20551, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions LEXIS 4632 (Bankr. D.
Kan. July 31, 2006)
1899.
In re SINGLETARY, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions 30339, 2006 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions LEXIS 8245
(Bankr. S.D. Tex. June 23, 2006)
1900.
GHS HMO, Inc. v. United States, 2001 Fed. Cl. Ct. Motions 517, 2006 Fed. Cl. Ct. Motions LEXIS 138
(Fed. Cl. Mar. 31, 2006)
1901.
GHS HMO, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 2001 Fed. Cl. Ct. Motions 517, 2006 Fed. Cl. Ct. Motions LEXIS
141 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 17, 2006)
1902.
GHS HMO, Inc. v. United States, 2001 Fed. Cl. Ct. Motions 517, 2005 Fed. Cl. Ct. Motions LEXIS 51 (Fed.
Cl. Dec. 22, 2005)
1903.
BOEKEN v. PHILIP MORRIS INC., 2001 CA Sup. Ct. Motions 226593, 2001 CA Sup. Ct. Motions LEXIS
29 (Cal. Super. Ct. July 26, 2001)
1904.
BOEKEN v. PHILIP MORRIS, INC., 2000 CA Sup. Ct. Motions 226593, 2000 CA Sup. Ct. Motions LEXIS
4 (Cal. Super. Ct. June 2, 2000)
1905.
DELAWARE ex rel. BRADY, 2002 DE Ch. Ct. Motions 2164, 2005 DE Ch. Ct. Motions LEXIS 1474 (Del.
Ch. Feb. 1, 2005)
1906.
The citation previously displayed here is unavailable because information has been updated.
1907.
The citation previously displayed here is unavailable because information has been updated.
1908.
The citation previously displayed here is unavailable because information has been updated.
PLEADINGS ( 10 Citing Pleadings )
1909.
SMOKING EVERYWHERE, INC. v. U.S. FDA, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 771, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct.
Pleadings LEXIS 989 (D.D.C. Apr. 28, 2009)
1910.
ILLINOIS ex rel. MADIGAN, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 3050, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS
8080 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 7, 2008)
1911.
Hopkins v. IRS, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 582861, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 7161 (D.N.M.
July 24, 2007)
Page 150
SHEPARD'S® - 529 U.S. 120 - 1918 Citing References
1912.
Phillips v. IRS, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 2719, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 8737 (D. Ariz.
Nov. 14, 2006)
1913.
UNITED STATES v. HENRY D. GOLTZ & EVANGELINE S. GOLTZ,, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 503C,
2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 5063 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 2006)
1914.
TYLER v. SMITH, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 1040A, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 7077 (M.D.
La. July 21, 2006)
1915.
ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT v. PENSION BEN. GUAR. CORP., 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 95880, 2005
U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 2182 (D.D.C. May 20, 2005)
1916.
NUTRACEUTICAL v. CRAWFORD, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 69620, 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings
LEXIS 2453 (D. Utah Aug. 18, 2004)
1917.
LOCKYER v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO, 2005 CA S. Ct. Pleadings 121009S, 2005 CA S. Ct. Pleadings
LEXIS 3 (Cal. July 20, 2005)
1918.
BOEKEN v. PHILIP MORRIS INC., 2001 CA Sup. Ct. Pleadings 226593, 2001 CA Sup. Ct. Pleadings
LEXIS 67 (Cal. Super. Ct. July 6, 2001)
Page 151
LEXSEE 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
Caution
As of: Sep 08, 2009
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. v. BROWN & WILLIAMSON
TOBACCO CORPORATION, ET AL.
No. 98-1152
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
529 U.S. 120; 120 S. Ct. 1291; 146 L. Ed. 2d 121; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195; 68 U.S.L.W.
4194; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2215; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 2987; 2000 Colo. J.
C.A.R. 1435; 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 161
December 1, 1999, Argued
March 21, 2000, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY:
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.
DISPOSITION:
153 F.3d 155, affirmed.
scheme. Given the history and the breadth of the authority that the FDA had asserted, the court was obliged to
defer not to the agency's expansive construction of the
statute, but Congress' consistent judgment to deny the
FDA the power to regulate tobacco products. Therefore,
the court affirmed the decision of the court below.
CASE SUMMARY:
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioner, the United
States Government, sought writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which
reversed a decision of the district court and held that
Congress had not granted the Federal Food and Drug
Administration jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products.
OVERVIEW: The court affirmed the decision of the
court below, which held that Congress had not granted
the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products. The court stated
that, considering the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act (Act), 21 U.S.C.S. § 301 et seq., as a whole, it was
clear that Congress intended to exclude tobacco products
from the FDA's jurisdiction. If tobacco products were
within the FDA's jurisdiction, the Act would require the
FDA to remove them from the market entirely. Such a
ban would contradict Congress' clear intent as expressed
in recent tobacco-specific legislation. Thus, there existed
no room for tobacco products within the Act's regulatory
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the decision of the
court below, which held that Congress had not granted
the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products, on the grounds that,
considering the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act as
a whole, it was clear that Congress intended to exclude
tobacco products from the FDA's jurisdiction.
CORE TERMS: tobacco, cigarette, tobacco products,
smoking, nicotine, food, labeling, manufacturer, ban,
consumer, authority to regulate, therapeutic, smokeless,
public health, advertising, safe, tobacco-specific, marketed, regulatory scheme, cosmetic, disease, assurance,
commerce, illness, health effects, tobacco-related, customarily, addiction, smoker, jurisdictional
LexisNexis(R) Headnotes
Governments > Legislation > Interpretation
Page 152
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
[HN1] In determining whether Congress has specifically
addressed the question at issue, a reviewing court should
not confine itself to examining a particular statutory provision in isolation. The meaning, or ambiguity, of certain
words or phrases may only become evident when placed
in context. The words of a statute must be read in their
context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme. A court must therefore interpret the statute
as a symmetrical and coherent regulatory scheme, and
fit, if possible, all parts into a harmonious whole. Similarly, the meaning of one statute may be affected by other Acts, particularly where Congress has spoken subsequently and more specifically to the topic at hand. In
addition, the reviewing court must be guided to a degree
by common sense as to the manner in which Congress is
likely to delegate a policy decision of such economic and
political magnitude to an administrative agency.
Administrative Law > Agency Rulemaking > General
Overview
Governments > Agriculture & Food > Federal Food,
Drug & Cosmetic Act
Healthcare Law > Treatment > Medical Devices >
Premarket Approval
[HN2] The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act), 21
U.S.C.S. § 301 et seq., requires premarket approval of
any new drug, and states that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shall issue order refusing to approve application of a new drug if it is not safe and effective for
intended purpose. 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 355(d)(1)-(2), (4)-(5).
If FDA discovers after approval that a drug is unsafe or
ineffective, it shall, after due notice and opportunity for
hearing to applicant, withdraw approval of drug. 21
U.S.C.S. §§ 355(e)(1)-(3). The Act also requires FDA to
classify all devices into one of three categories. 21
U.S.C.S. § 360c(b)(1). Regardless of which category the
FDA chooses, there must be a reasonable assurance of
the safety and effectiveness of the device. 21 U.S.C.S. §§
360c(a)(1)(A)(i),(B),C) (1994 ed. and Supp. III); 61 Fed.
Reg. 44412 (1996). The Act generally requires the FDA
to prevent the marketing of any drug or device where the
potential for inflicting death or physical injury is not
offset by the possibility of therapeutic benefit.
Governments > Agriculture & Food > Federal Food,
Drug & Cosmetic Act
[HN3] See 21 U.S.C.S. § 331(a).
Governments > Agriculture & Food > Federal Food,
Drug & Cosmetic Act
[HN4] 21 U.S.C.S. § 352(j) deems a drug or device misbranded if it is dangerous to health when used in the
dosage or manner, or with the frequency or duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling
thereof.
Antitrust & Trade Law > Consumer Protection > Deceptive Labeling & Packaging > General Overview
Governments > Agriculture & Food > Federal Food,
Drug & Cosmetic Act
[HN5] A drug or device is misbranded under the Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C.S. § 301 et seq., unless its labeling bears adequate directions for use in such
manner and form, as are necessary for the protection of
users, except where such directions are not necessary for
the protection of the public health. 21 U.S.C.S. §
352(f)(1).
Governments > Agriculture & Food > Federal Food,
Drug & Cosmetic Act
[HN6] The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C.S. §
301 et seq., requires the Food and Drug Administration
to place all devices that it regulates into one of three
classifications. The agency relies on a device's classification in determining the degree of control and regulation
necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable assurance
of safety and effectiveness.
Governments > Agriculture & Food > Federal Food,
Drug & Cosmetic Act
Healthcare Law > Treatment > Medical Devices >
Classification & Regulation
Healthcare Law > Treatment > Medical Devices >
Premarket Approval
[HN7] Although the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(Act), 21 U.S.C.S. § 301 et seq., prescribes no deadline
for device classification, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has stated that it will classify tobacco products in a future rule-making as required by the Act. Given the FDA's findings regarding the health consequences
of tobacco use, the agency would have to place cigarettes
and smokeless tobacco in Class III because, even after
the application of the Act's available controls, they would
present a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury.
21 U.S.C.S. § 360c(a)(1)(C). As Class III devices, tobacco products would be subject to the Act's pre-market
approval process. Under these provisions, the FDA
would be prohibited from approving an application for
pre-market approval without a showing of reasonable
assurance that such device is safe under the conditions of
use prescribed, recommended, or suggested on the labeling thereof. 21 U.S.C.S. § 360e(d)(2)(A).
Page 153
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
Governments > Agriculture & Food > Federal Food,
Drug & Cosmetic Act
[HN8] Were the Food and Drug Administration to regulate cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, the Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C.S. § 301 et seq., would require the agency to ban them.
Administrative Law > Agency Rulemaking > General
Overview
Governments > Agriculture & Food > Federal Food,
Drug & Cosmetic Act
[HN9] A ban of tobacco products by the Food and Drug
Administration would plainly contradict congressional
policy.
Governments > Agriculture & Food > Federal Food,
Drug & Cosmetic Act
Healthcare Law > Treatment > Medical Devices >
Premarket Approval
[HN10] See 21 U.S.C.S. § 360c(a)(2).
Governments > Agriculture & Food > Federal Food,
Drug & Cosmetic Act
[HN11] 21 U.S.C.S. § 352(j) focuses on dangers to the
consumer from use of the product, not those stemming
from the agency's remedial measures.
Governments > Agriculture & Food > Federal Food,
Drug & Cosmetic Act
[HN12] The Food and Drug Administration may not
conclude that a drug or device cannot be used safely for
any therapeutic purpose and yet, at the same time, allow
that product to remain on the market.
Antitrust & Trade Law > Consumer Protection > Tobacco Products > Federal Cigarette Labeling & Advertising Act
Governments > Agriculture & Food > Product Promotion
Governments > Federal Government > Claims By &
Against
[HN13] Although the supervision of product labeling to
protect consumer health is a substantial component of the
Food and Drug Administration's regulation of drugs and
devices, the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising
Act, 79 Stat. 282, and the Comprehensive Smokeless
Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986, 15 U.S.C.S. §
4401 et seq., explicitly prohibit any federal agency from
imposing any health-related labeling requirements on
cigarettes or smokeless tobacco products.
Administrative Law > Separation of Powers > Constitutional Controls > General Overview
Governments > Federal Government > U.S. Congress
[HN14] An administrative agency's power to regulate in
the public interest must always be grounded in a valid
grant of authority from Congress.
DECISION:
Congress held to have precluded Food and Drug
Administration from asserting jurisdiction to regulate
tobacco products.
SUMMARY:
Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA)
(21 USCS 301 et seq.), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was granted the authority to regulate, among
other items, "drugs" and "devices." In August 1996, the
FDA asserted jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products in
the United States after concluding that, under the FDCA,
(1) nicotine was a "drug," (2) cigarettes and smokeless
tobacco were "devices" that delivered nicotine to the
body, and (3) therefore, the FDA had jurisdiction to regulate those tobacco products as customarily marketed,
that is, without manufacturer claims of therapeutic benefit. Pursuant to this asserted authority, the FDA promulgated regulations governing tobacco products' advertising, promotion, labeling, and accessibility to children
and adolescents. By reducing tobacco use by minors, the
regulations aimed substantially to reduce the prevalence
of addiction and thus, the incidence of tobacco-related
death and disease. A group of tobacco manufacturers,
retailers, and advertisers (1) filed, in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina,
a suit challenging the FDA's regulations, and (2) moved
for summary judgment on the claimed grounds that (a)
the FDA lacked jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products
as customarily marketed, (b) the regulations exceeded
the FDA's authority under 21 USCS 360j(e), and (c) the
advertising restrictions violated the Federal Constitution's First Amendment. Granting the respondents' motion in part and denying the motion in part, the District
Court (1) ruled that (a) the FDCA authorized the FDA to
regulate tobacco products as they were customarily marketed, (b) the FDA's access and labeling regulations were
permissible, and (c) the FDA's advertising and promotion
restrictions exceeded the agency's authority under
360j(e); (2) stayed implementation of the regulations
which the court found valid (except the prohibition on
the sale of tobacco products to minors); and (3) certified
the court's order for immediate interlocutory appeal (966
F Supp 1374). Without addressing whether the regulations exceeded the FDA's authority under 360j(e) or vio-
Page 154
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
lated the First Amendment, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, expressing the
view that Congress had not granted the FDA jurisdiction
to regulate tobacco products (153 F3d 155).
On certiorari, the United States Supreme Court affirmed. In an opinion by O'Connor, J., joined by
Rehnquist, Ch. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ.,
it was held that Congress had clearly precluded the FDA
from asserting jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products
as customarily marketed--that is, without manufacturer
claims of therapeutic benefit--as such FDA authority was
inconsistent with (1) the intent that Congress had expressed in the regulatory scheme of the FDCA--requiring
that any product regulated by the FDA that was to remain on the market ought to be safe and effective for the
product's intended use--and (2) the tobacco-specific legislation that Congress--relying, in part, on the consistent
and repeated representations of the FDA, prior to 1995,
that the agency had no authority to regulate tobacco--had
enacted subsequent to the FDCA.
Breyer, J., joined by Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg,
JJ., dissenting, expressed the view that the FDA had authority to regulate tobacco products, since (1) tobacco
products fit within the statutory language of the FDCA;
(2) the FDCA's basic purpose--the protection of public
health--supported the inclusion of cigarettes within the
statute's scope; (3) the FDCA's legislative history established that the FDA had authority to regulate tobacco; (4)
the statute-specific arguments against jurisdiction were
based on erroneous assumptions; (5) the inferences
drawn from later legislative history were not persuasive;
(6) the fact that the FDA had changed the scope of the
agency's own jurisdiction was legally insignificant; and
(7) the degree of accountability that would likely have
attached to the FDA's action in the case at hand ought to
have alleviated any concern that Congress, rather than an
administrative agency, ought to make this important regulatory decision.
LAWYERS' EDITION HEADNOTES:
[***LEdHN1]
DRUGS NARCOTICS POISONS §10
-- tobacco products -- FDA
Headnote:[1A][1B][1C][1D][1E][1F][1G][1H][1I][1J][1K][1
L][1M][1N]
Congressional action clearly precludes the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) from asserting jurisdiction
to regulate tobacco products as customarily marketed--that is, without manufacturer claims of therapeutic
benefit--as such FDA authority is inconsistent with (1)
the intent that Congress expressed in the regulatory
scheme of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA)
(21 USCS 301 et seq.), and (2) the tobacco-specific legislation that Congress--relying, in part, on the prior consistent and repeated representations of the FDA that the
agency had no authority to regulate tobacco--enacted
subsequent to the FDCA. (Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and
Ginsburg, JJ., dissented from this holding.)
[***LEdHN2]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW §276
STATUTES §157
-- deference to agency
Headnote:[2A][2B][2C][2D]
Regardless of how serious the problem a federal
administrative agency seeks to address, the agency may
not exercise authority in a manner that is inconsistent
with the administrative structure that Congress has enacted into law; although agencies are generally entitled
to deference in the interpretation of statutes that they
administer, a reviewing court, as well as the agency,
must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent
of Congress.
[***LEdHN3]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW §276
STATUTES §155.5
-- deference to agency
Headnote:[3A][3B][3C][3D]
In dealing with a case that involves an administrative agency's construction of a federal statute that the
agency administers, analysis by a reviewing court is
governed by Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v Natural Resources
Defense Council, Inc. (1984) 467 US 837, 81 L Ed 2d
694, 104 S Ct 2778--which decided that (1) if Congress
has directly spoken to the precise question at issue, the
inquiry is at an end since the court, as well as the agency,
must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent
of Congress, and (2) if Congress has not specifically addressed the question, the agency's construction of the
statute must be respected by the reviewing court so long
as the construction is permissible--since (1) assessing the
wisdom of policy choices and resolving the struggle between competing views of the public interest are not judicial responsibilities, and (2) an administrative agency
has greater familiarity with the ever-changing facts and
circumstances surrounding the subjects regulated; deference, under the Chevron decision, to an agency's construction of a statute that the agency administers is
premised on the theory that a statute's ambiguity consti-
Page 155
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
tutes an implicit delegation from Congress to the agency
to fill in the statutory gaps; however, in extraordinary
cases, there may be reason to hesitate before concluding
that Congress has intended such an implicit delegation.
[***LEdHN4]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW §276
STATUTES §113
-- context -- other statutes
Headnote:[4A][4B][4C][4D][4E]
A reviewing court--when analyzing an administrative agency's construction of a federal statute that the
agency administers--should not confine itself to examining a particular statutory provision in isolation in determining whether Congress has specifically addressed the
question at issue, as (1) the meaning--or ambiguity--of
certain words or phrases may only become evident when
placed in context, (2) a fundamental canon of statutory
construction is that the words of a statute must be read in
their context and with a view to their place in the overall
statutory scheme, and (3) the meaning of one statute may
be affected by other statutes, particularly where Congress
has spoken subsequently and more specifically to the
topic at hand; therefore, a reviewing court must (1) interpret the statute as a symmetrical and coherent regulatory scheme, (2) fit--if possible--all parts of the regulatory scheme into a harmonious whole, and (3) be guided
to a degree by common sense as to the manner in which
Congress is likely to delegate a policy decision of such
economic and political magnitude to an administrative
agency.
[***LEdHN5]
DRUGS NARCOTICS POISONS §2
-- tobacco products -- FDA
Headnote:[5A][5B][5C][5D]
Viewing the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA)
(21 USCS 301 et seq.) as a whole, the clear intention of
Congress is to exclude tobacco products from the Food
and Drug Administration's (FDA's) jurisdiction, where
(1) one of the FDCA's core objectives is to insure that
any product regulated by the FDA is "safe" and "effective" for the product's intended use, that is, the potential
for inflicting death or physical injury must be offset by
the possibility of therapeutic benefit; (2) the FDA has
exhaustively documented that tobacco products are unsafe, dangerous, and cause great pain and suffering from
illness; and (3) as a result, if tobacco products are "devices" under the FDCA, then the FDA would be required
to remove tobacco products from the market under the
FDCA's misbranding and device classification provi-
sions. (Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., dissented from this holding.)
[***LEdHN6]
DRUGS NARCOTICS POISONS §10
-- marketing standards
Headnote:[6]
The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 USCS 301 et
seq.) generally requires the Food and Drug Administration to prevent the marketing of any drug or device
where the potential for inflicting death or physical injury
is not offset by the possibility of a therapeutic benefit.
(Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., dissented
from this holding.)
[***LEdHN7]
DRUGS NARCOTICS POISONS §10
-- FDA -- regulation of dangerous products
Headnote:[7]
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), consistent with the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA)
(21 USCS 301 et seq.), may regulate dangerous products
without banning them, as virtually every drug or device
poses dangers under certain conditions; however, the
FDA may not conclude that a drug or device cannot be
used safely for any therapeutic purpose and, at the same
time, allow that product to remain on the market, since
this type of regulation is incompatible with the FDCA's
core objective of insuring that every drug or device is
safe and effective. (Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., dissented from this holding.)
[***LEdHN8]
DRUGS NARCOTICS POISONS §10
-- safe and therapeutic drugs -- FDA
Headnote:[8]
Various provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FDCA) (21 USCS 301 et seq.) make clear that the
FDCA's fundamental precept--that any product regulated
by the FDA, but not banned, must be safe for its intended
use--refers to the safety of using the product to obtain its
intended effects and not the public health ramifications
of alternative administrative actions by the FDA, that is,
the FDA must determine that there is a reasonable assurance that the product's therapeutic benefits outweigh
the risk of harm to the consumer; if tobacco products
cannot be used safely for any therapeutic purpose, and
yet the products cannot be banned, then the inescapable
conclusion is that there is no room for tobacco products
Page 156
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
within the FDCA's regulatory scheme. (Breyer, Stevens,
Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., dissented from this holding.)
[***LEdHN9]
STATUTES §153
-- laws enacted over time
Headnote:[9]
The judicial task of reconciling many laws enacted
over time, and getting the laws to make sense in combination, necessarily assumes that the implications of a
statute may be altered by the implications of a later statute; this is particularly so where the scope of the earlier
statute is broad but the subsequent statutes more specifically address the topic at hand, that is, a specific policy
embodied in a later federal statute should control a
court's construction of the earlier statute, even though the
prior statute has not been expressly amended.
[***LEdHN10]
DRUGS NARCOTICS POISONS §1
-- tobacco legislation
Headnote:[10]
While the intent of Congress is relevant to understanding the basis for the Food and Drug Administration's representations to Congress and to understanding
the background against which Congress enacted subsequent tobacco-specific legislation, the provisions of the
nation's laws rather than the principal concerns of the
nation's legislators ultimately govern.
[***LEdHN11]
DRUGS NARCOTICS POISONS §2
-- tobacco products -- labeling -- FDA
Headnote:[11A][11B][11C][11D]
The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act
(FCLAA) (15 USCS 1331 et seq.)--which, among other
matters, (1) created a comprehensive federal program to
deal with cigarette labeling and advertising with respect
to any relationship between smoking and health, (2) explicitly pre-empted any other regulation of cigarette labeling, and (3) evidenced Congress' intent to preclude
any administrative agency from exercising significant
policymaking authority on the subject of smoking and
health--is incompatible with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation of tobacco products; while the
FCLAA's pre-emption provision does not necessarily
foreclose FDA jurisdiction, the provision is an important
factor in assessing whether Congress has ratified the
agency's position, that is, whether Congress has adopted
a regulatory approach to the problem of tobacco and
health that contemplates no role for the FDA. (Breyer,
Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., dissented from this
holding.)
[***LEdHN12]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW §89
-- adaptation
Headnote:[12]
An administrative agency's initial interpretation of a
statute that the agency is charged with administering is
not carved in stone, that is, administrative agencies must
be given ample latitude to adapt their rules and policies
to the demands of changing circumstances.
SYLLABUS
The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21
U.S.C. § 301 et seq., grants the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as the designee of the Secretary of
Health and Human Services (HHS), the authority to regulate, among other items, "drugs" and "devices," §§
321(g)-(h), 393. In 1996, the FDA asserted jurisdiction to
regulate tobacco products, concluding that, under the
FDCA, nicotine is a "drug" and cigarettes and smokeless
tobacco are "devices" that deliver nicotine to the body.
Pursuant to this authority, the FDA promulgated regulations governing tobacco products' promotion, labeling,
and accessibility to children and adolescents. The FDA
found that tobacco use is the Nation's leading cause of
premature death, resulting in more than 400,000 deaths
annually, and that most adult smokers begin when they
are minors. The regulations therefore aim to reduce tobacco use by minors so as to substantially reduce the
prevalence of addiction in future generations, and thus
the incidence of tobacco-related death and disease. Respondents, a group of tobacco manufacturers, retailers,
and advertisers, filed this suit challenging the FDA's regulations. They moved for summary judgment on the
ground, inter alia, that the FDA lacked jurisdiction to
regulate tobacco products as customarily marketed, that
is, without manufacturer claims of therapeutic benefit.
The District Court upheld the FDA's authority, but the
Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that Congress has not
granted the FDA jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products. The court concluded that construing the FDCA to
include tobacco products would lead to several internal
inconsistencies in the Act. It also found that evidence
external to the FDCA -- that the FDA consistently stated
before 1995 that it lacked jurisdiction over tobacco, that
Congress has enacted several tobacco-specific statutes
fully cognizant of the FDA's position, and that Congress
has considered and rejected many bills that would have
Page 157
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
given the agency such authority -- confirms this conclusion.
Held: Reading the FDCA as a whole, as well as in
conjunction with Congress' subsequent tobacco-specific
legislation, it is plain that Congress has not given the
FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products as customarily marketed. Pp. 8-40.
(a) Because this case involves an agency's construction of a statute it administers, the Court's analysis is
governed by Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources
Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 81 L. Ed. 2d 694,
104 S. Ct. 2778, under which a reviewing court must first
ask whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise
question at issue, id., at 842. If so, the court must give
effect to Congress' unambiguously expressed intent. E.g.,
id., at 843. If not, the court must defer to the agency's
construction of the statute so long as it is permissible.
See, e.g., INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 424, 143
L. Ed. 2d 590, 119 S. Ct. 1439. In determining whether
Congress has specifically addressed the question at issue,
the court should not confine itself to examining a particular statutory provision in isolation. Rather, it must place
the provision in context, interpreting the statute to create
a symmetrical and coherent regulatory scheme. Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 569, 131 L. Ed. 2d 1,
115 S. Ct. 1061. In addition, the meaning of one statute
may be affected by other Acts, particularly where Congress has spoken subsequently and more specifically to
the topic at hand. See, e.g., United States v. Estate of
Romani, 523 U.S. 517, 530-531, 140 L. Ed. 2d 710, 118
S. Ct. 1478. Finally, the court must be guided to a degree
by common sense as to the manner in which Congress is
likely to delegate a policy decision of such economic and
political magnitude to an administrative agency. Cf.
MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone
& Telegraph Co., 512 U.S. 218, 231, 129 L. Ed. 2d 182,
114 S. Ct. 2223. Pp. 8-10.
(b) Considering the FDCA as a whole, it is clear that
Congress intended to exclude tobacco products from the
FDA's jurisdiction. A fundamental precept of the FDCA
is that any product regulated by the FDA that remains on
the market must be safe and effective for its intended
use. See, e.g., § 393(b)(2). That is, the potential for
inflicting death or physical injury must be offset by the
possibility of therapeutic benefit. United States v.
Rutherford, 442 U.S. 544, 556, 61 L. Ed. 2d 68, 99 S. Ct.
2470. In its rulemaking proceeding, the FDA quite exhaustively documented that tobacco products are unsafe,
dangerous, and cause great pain and suffering from illness. These findings logically imply that, if tobacco
products were "devices" under the FDCA, the FDA
would be required to remove them from the market under
the FDCA's misbranding, see, e.g., § 331(a), and device
classification, see, e.g., § 360e(d)(2)(A), provisions. In
fact, based on such provisions, the FDA itself has previously asserted that if tobacco products were within its
jurisdiction, they would have to be removed from the
market because it would be impossible to prove they
were safe for their intended use. Congress, however, has
foreclosed a ban of such products, choosing instead to
create a distinct regulatory scheme focusing on the labeling and advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. Its express policy is to protect commerce and the
national economy while informing consumers about any
adverse health effects. See 15 U.S.C. § 1331. Thus, an
FDA ban would plainly contradict congressional intent.
Apparently recognizing this dilemma, the FDA has concluded that tobacco products are actually "safe" under the
FDCA because banning them would cause a greater
harm to public health than leaving them on the market.
But this safety determination -- focusing on the relative
harms caused by alternative remedial measures -- is not a
substitute for those required by the FDCA. Various provisions in the Act require the agency to determine that, at
least for some consumers, the product's therapeutic benefits outweigh the risks of illness or serious injury. This
the FDA cannot do, because tobacco products are unsafe
for obtaining any therapeutic benefit. The inescapable
conclusion is that there is no room for tobacco products
within the FDCA's regulatory scheme. If they cannot be
used safely for any therapeutic purpose, and yet they
cannot be banned, they simply do not fit. Pp. 10-20.
(c) The history of tobacco-specific legislation also
demonstrates that Congress has spoken directly to the
FDA's authority to regulate tobacco products. Since
1965, Congress has enacted six separate statutes addressing the problem of tobacco use and human health.
Those statutes, among other things, require that health
warnings appear on all packaging and in all print and
outdoor advertisements, see 15 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1333,
4402; prohibit the advertisement of tobacco products
through any electronic communication medium regulated
by the Federal Communications Commission, see §§
1335, 4402(f); require the Secretary of HHS to report
every three years to Congress on research findings concerning tobacco's addictive property, 42 U.S.C. §
290aa-2(b)(2); and make States' receipt of certain federal
block grants contingent on their prohibiting any tobacco
product manufacturer, retailer, or distributor from selling
or distributing any such product to individuals under age
18, § 300x-26(a)(1). This tobacco-specific legislation has
created a specific regulatory scheme for addressing the
problem of tobacco and health. And it was adopted
against the backdrop of the FDA consistently and resolutely stating that it was without authority under the
FDCA to regulate tobacco products as customarily marketed. In fact, Congress several times considered and
rejected bills that would have given the FDA such authority. Indeed, Congress' actions in this area have evi-
Page 158
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
denced a clear intent to preclude a meaningful policymaking role for any administrative agency. Further,
Congress' tobacco legislation prohibits any additional
regulation of tobacco product labeling with respect to
tobacco's health consequences, a central aspect of regulation under the FDCA. Under these circumstances, it is
evident that Congress has ratified the FDA's previous,
long-held position that it lacks jurisdiction to regulate
tobacco products as customarily marketed. Congress has
created a distinct scheme for addressing the subject, and
that scheme excludes any role for FDA regulation. Pp.
20-37.
(d) Finally, the Court's inquiry is shaped, at least in
some measure, by the nature of the question presented.
Chevron deference is premised on the theory that a statute's ambiguity constitutes an implicit delegation from
Congress to the agency to fill in the statutory gaps. See
467 U.S. at 844. In extraordinary cases, however, there
may be reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress has intended such an implicit delegation. This is
hardly an ordinary case. Contrary to the agency's position
from its inception until 1995, the FDA has now asserted
jurisdiction to regulate an industry constituting a significant portion of the American economy. In fact, the FDA
contends that, were it to determine that tobacco products
provide no "reasonable assurance of safety," it would
have the authority to ban cigarettes and smokeless tobacco entirely. It is highly unlikely that Congress would
leave the determination as to whether the sale of tobacco
products would be regulated, or even banned, to the
FDA's discretion in so cryptic a fashion. See MCI Telecommunications, 512 U.S. at 231. Given tobacco's
unique political history, as well as the breadth of the authority that the FDA has asserted, the Court is obliged to
defer not to the agency's expansive construction of the
statute, but to Congress' consistent judgment to deny the
FDA this power. Pp. 37-39.
(e) No matter how important, conspicuous, and controversial the issue, and regardless of how likely the public is to hold the Executive Branch politically accountable, an administrative agency's power to regulate in the
public interest must always be grounded in a valid grant
of authority from Congress. Courts must take care not to
extend a statute's scope beyond the point where Congress
indicated it would stop. E.g., United States v. Article of
Drug . . . Bacto-Unidisk, 394 U.S. 784, 800, 22 L. Ed. 2d
726, 89 S. Ct. 1410. P. 40.
153 F.3d 155, affirmed.
COUNSEL: Seth P. Waxman argued the cause for petitioners.
Richard M. Cooper argued the cause for respondents.
JUDGES: O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the
Court, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and SCALIA,
KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. BREYER, J.,
filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.
OPINION BY: O'CONNOR
OPINION
[*125]
[***129]
[**1296]
JUSTICE
O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
[***LEdHR1A] [1A]This case involves one of the
most troubling public health problems facing our Nation
today: the thousands of premature deaths that occur each
year because of tobacco use. In 1996, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), after having expressly disavowed
any such authority since [**1297] its inception, asserted jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products. See 61 Fed.
Reg. 44619-45318. The FDA concluded that nicotine is a
"drug" within the meaning of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA or Act), 52 Stat. 1040, as amended, 21
U.S.C. § 301 et seq., and that cigarettes and smokeless
tobacco are "combination products" that deliver nicotine
to the body. 61 Fed. Reg. 44397 (1996). Pursuant to
this authority, it promulgated regulations intended to
reduce tobacco consumption among children and adolescents. Id., at 44615-44618. The agency believed that,
because most tobacco consumers begin their use before
reaching the age of 18, curbing tobacco use by minors
could substantially reduce the prevalence of addiction in
future generations and thus the incidence of tobacco-related death and disease. Id., at 44398-44399.
[***LEdHR1B]
[1B]
[***LEdHR2A]
[2A]Regardless of how serious the problem an administrative agency seeks to address, however, it may not exercise its authority "in a manner that is inconsistent with
the administrative structure that Congress enacted into
law." ETSI Pipeline Project v. Missouri, 484 U.S. 495,
517, 98 L. Ed. 2d 898, 108 S. Ct. 805 (1988). And although agencies are generally entitled to deference in the
interpretation of statutes that they administer, a reviewing "court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the
unambiguously [*126] expressed intent [***130] of
Congress." Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources
Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-843, 81 L. Ed.
2d 694, 104 S. Ct. 2778 (1984). In this case, we believe
that Congress has clearly precluded the FDA from asserting jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products. Such
authority is inconsistent with the intent that Congress has
expressed in the FDCA's overall regulatory scheme and
in the tobacco-specific legislation that it has enacted
subsequent to the FDCA. In light of this clear intent, the
FDA's assertion of jurisdiction is impermissible.
Page 159
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
I
The FDCA grants the FDA, as the designee of the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, the authority to
regulate, among other items, "drugs" and "devices." See
21 U.S.C. §§ 321(g)-(h), 393 (1994 ed. and Supp. III).
The Act defines "drug" to include "articles (other than
food) intended to affect the structure or any function of
the body." 21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)(C). It defines "device,"
in part, as "an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, . . . or other similar or related article,
including any component, part, or accessory, which is . .
. intended to affect the structure or any function of the
body." § 321(h). The Act also grants the FDA the authority to regulate so-called "combination products,"
which "constitute a combination of a drug, device, or
biologic product." § 353(g)(1). The FDA has construed
this provision as giving it the discretion to regulate combination products as drugs, as devices, or as both. See 61
Fed. Reg. 44400 (1996).
On August 11, 1995, the FDA published a proposed
rule concerning the sale of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to children and adolescents. 60 Fed. Reg.
41314-41787. The rule, which included several restrictions on the sale, distribution, and advertisement of
tobacco products, was designed to reduce the availability
and attractiveness of tobacco products to young people.
Id., at 41314. A public comment period followed, during
which the FDA received over 700,000 submissions,
[*127] more than "at any other time in its history on
any other subject." 61 Fed. Reg. 44418 (1996).
On August 28, 1996, the FDA issued a final rule entitled "Regulations Restricting the Sale and Distribution
of Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco to Protect Children
and Adolescents." Id., at 44396. The FDA determined
that nicotine is a "drug" and that cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are "drug delivery devices," and therefore it
had jurisdiction under the FDCA to regulate tobacco
products as customarily [**1298] marketed -- that is,
without manufacturer claims of therapeutic benefit. Id.,
at 44397, 44402. First, the FDA found that tobacco
products "'affect the structure or any function of the
body'" because nicotine "has significant pharmacological
effects." Id., at 44631. Specifically, nicotine "exerts
psychoactive, or mood-altering, effects on the brain" that
cause and sustain addiction, have both tranquilizing and
stimulating effects, and control weight. Id., at
44631-44632. Second, the FDA determined that these
effects were "intended" under the FDCA because they
"are so widely known and foreseeable that [they] may be
deemed to have been intended by the manufacturers," id.,
at 44687; consumers use tobacco products "predominantly or nearly [***131] exclusively" to obtain these
effects, id., at 44807; and the statements, research, and
actions of manufacturers revealed that they "have 'de-
signed' cigarettes to provide pharmacologically active
doses of nicotine to consumers," id., at 44849. Finally,
the agency concluded that cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are "combination products" because, in addition to
containing nicotine, they include device components that
deliver a controlled amount of nicotine to the body, id.,
at 45208-45216.
Having resolved the jurisdictional question, the FDA
next explained the policy justifications for its regulations, detailing the deleterious health effects associated
with tobacco use. It found that tobacco consumption was
"the single leading cause of preventable death in the
United States." Id., at 44398. According to the FDA,
"more than 400,000 [*128] people die each year from
tobacco-related illnesses, such as cancer, respiratory illnesses, and heart disease." Ibid. The agency also determined that the only way to reduce the amount of tobacco-related illness and mortality was to reduce the level of
addiction, a goal that could be accomplished only by
preventing children and adolescents from starting to use
tobacco. Id., at 44398-44399. The FDA found that 82%
of adult smokers had their first cigarette before the age of
18, and more than half had already become regular
smokers by that age. Id., at 44398. It also found that
children were beginning to smoke at a younger age, that
the prevalence of youth smoking had recently increased,
and that similar problems existed with respect to smokeless tobacco. Id., at 44398-44399. The FDA accordingly
concluded that if "the number of children and adolescents who begin tobacco use can be substantially diminished, tobacco-related illness can be correspondingly
reduced because data suggest that anyone who does not
begin smoking in childhood or adolescence is unlikely
ever to begin." Id., at 44399.
Based on these findings, the FDA promulgated regulations concerning tobacco products' promotion, labeling, and accessibility to children and adolescents. See id.,
at 44615-44618. The access regulations prohibit the sale
of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco to persons younger
than 18; require retailers to verify through photo identification the age of all purchasers younger than 27; prohibit the sale of cigarettes in quantities smaller than 20;
prohibit the distribution of free samples; and prohibit
sales through self-service displays and vending machines
except in adult-only locations. Id., at 44616-44617. The
promotion regulations require that any print advertising
appear in a black-and-white, text-only format unless the
publication in which it appears is read almost exclusively
by adults; prohibit outdoor advertising within 1,000 feet
of any public playground or school; prohibit the distribution of any promotional items, such as T-shirts or hats,
bearing the manufacturer's brand name; and prohibit a
[*129] manufacturer from sponsoring any athletic, musical, artistic, or other social or cultural event using its
Page 160
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
brand name. Id., at 44617-44618. The labeling regulation
requires that the statement, "A Nicotine-Delivery Device
for Persons 18 or Older," appear on all tobacco product
packages. Id., at 44617.
[**1299] The FDA promulgated these regulations
pursuant to its authority to regulate "restricted devices."
See 21 U.S.C. § 360j(e). The FDA construed § 353(g)(1)
as [***132] giving it the discretion to regulate "combination products" using the Act's drug authorities, device authorities, or both, depending on "how the public
health goals of the act can be best accomplished." 61
Fed. Reg. 44403 (1996). Given the greater flexibility in
the FDCA for the regulation of devices, the FDA determined that "the device authorities provide the most appropriate basis for regulating cigarettes and smokeless
tobacco." Id., at 44404. Under 21 U.S.C. § 360j(e), the
agency may "require that a device be restricted to sale,
distribution, or use . . . upon such other conditions as [the
FDA] may prescribe in such regulation, if, because of its
potentiality for harmful effect or the collateral measures
necessary to its use, [the FDA] determines that there
cannot otherwise be reasonable assurance of its safety
and effectiveness." The FDA reasoned that its regulations fell within the authority granted by § 360j(e) because they related to the sale or distribution of tobacco
products and were necessary for providing a reasonable
assurance of safety. 61 Fed. Reg. 44405-44407 (1996).
Respondents, a group of tobacco manufacturers, retailers, and advertisers, filed suit in United States District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina challenging the regulations. See Coyne Beahm, Inc. v. FDA,
966 F. Supp. 1374 (1997). They moved for summary
judgment on the grounds that the FDA lacked jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products as customarily marketed, the regulations exceeded the FDA's authority under
21 U.S.C. § 360j(e), and the advertising [*130] restrictions violated the First Amendment. Second Brief
in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment
in No. 2:95CV00591 (MDNC), in 3 Rec. in No. 97-1604
(CA4), Tab No. 40; Third Brief in Support of Plaintiffs'
Motion for Summary Judgment in No. 2:95CV00591
(MDNC), in 3 Rec. in No. 97-1604 (CA4), Tab No. 42.
The District Court granted respondents' motion in part
and denied it in part. 966 F. Supp. at 1400. The court
held that the FDCA authorizes the FDA to regulate tobacco products as customarily marketed and that the
FDA's access and labeling regulations are permissible,
but it also found that the agency's advertising and promotion restrictions exceed its authority under § 360j(e).
Id., at 1380-1400. The court stayed implementation of
the regulations it found valid (except the prohibition on
the sale of tobacco products to minors) and certified its
order for immediate interlocutory appeal.
Id., at
1400-1401.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that Congress has not granted the FDA
jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products. See 153 F.3d
155 (1998). Examining the FDCA as a whole, the court
concluded that the FDA's regulation of tobacco products
would create a number of internal inconsistencies. Id.,
at 162-167. Various provisions of the Act require the
agency to determine that any regulated product is "safe"
before it can be sold or allowed to remain on the market,
yet the FDA found in its rulemaking proceeding that
tobacco products are "dangerous" and "unsafe." Id., at
164-167. Thus, the FDA would apparently have to ban
tobacco products, a result the court found clearly contrary to congressional intent. Ibid. This apparent anomaly,
the Court of Appeals concluded, demonstrates that Congress did not intend to give the FDA authority to regulate
tobacco. Id., at 167. The court also found that evidence
[***133] external to the FDCA confirms this conclusion. Importantly, the FDA consistently stated before
1995 that it lacked jurisdiction over tobacco, and Congress has enacted [*131] several tobacco-specific statutes fully cognizant of the FDA's position. See id., at
168-176. In fact, the court reasoned, Congress has considered and rejected many bills that would have given the
agency such authority. See id., at 170-171. This, along
with the absence of any intent by the enacting Congress
in [**1300] 1938 to subject tobacco products to regulation under the FDCA, demonstrates that Congress intended to withhold such authority from the FDA. Id., at
167-176. Having resolved the jurisdictional question
against the agency, the Court of Appeals did not address
whether the regulations exceed the FDA's authority under 21 U.S.C. § 360j(e) or violate the First Amendment.
See 153 F.3d at 176, n. 29.
We granted the Government's petition for certiorari,
526 U.S. 1086 (1999), to determine whether the FDA has
authority under the FDCA to regulate tobacco products
as customarily marketed.
II
The FDA's assertion of jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products is founded on its conclusions that nicotine is a "drug" and that cigarettes and smokeless tobacco
are "drug delivery devices." Again, the FDA found that
tobacco products are "intended" to deliver the pharmacological effects of satisfying addiction, stimulation and
tranquilization, and weight control because those effects
are foreseeable to any reasonable manufacturer, consumers use tobacco products to obtain those effects, and tobacco manufacturers have designed their products to
produce those effects. 61 Fed. Reg. 44632-44633
(1996). As an initial matter, respondents take issue with
the FDA's reading of "intended," arguing that it is a term
of art that refers exclusively to claims made by the manufacturer or vendor about the product. See Brief for Re-
Page 161
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
spondent Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. 6. That is,
a product is not a drug or device under the FDCA unless
the manufacturer or vendor makes some express claim
concerning the product's therapeutic benefits. See id., at
6-7. We [*132] need not resolve this question, however, because assuming, arguendo, that a product can be
"intended to affect the structure or any function of the
body" absent claims of therapeutic or medical benefit,
the FDA's claim to jurisdiction contravenes the clear
intent of Congress.
[***LEdHR2B] [2B] [***LEdHR3A] [3A]A threshold issue is the appropriate framework for analyzing the
FDA's assertion of authority to regulate tobacco products. Because this case involves an administrative agency's construction of a statute that it administers, our
analysis is governed by Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 81 L. Ed.
2d 694, 104 S. Ct. 2778 (1984). Under Chevron, a reviewing court must first ask "whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue." Id., at
842. If Congress has done so, the inquiry is at an end; the
court "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed
intent of Congress." Id., at 843; see also United States v.
Haggar Apparel Co., 526 U.S. 380, 392, 143 L. Ed. 2d
480, 119 S. Ct. 1392 (1999); Holly Farms Corp. v.
NLRB, 517 U.S. 392, 398, [***134] 134 L. Ed. 2d
593, 116 S. Ct. 1396 (1996). But if Congress has not
specifically addressed the question, a reviewing court
must respect the agency's construction of the statute so
long as it is permissible. See INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526
U.S. 415, 424, 143 L. Ed. 2d 590, 119 S. Ct. 1439 (1999);
Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 457, 137 L. Ed. 2d 79,
117 S. Ct. 905 (1997). Such deference is justified because "the responsibilities for assessing the wisdom of
such policy choices and resolving the struggle between
competing views of the public interest are not judicial
ones," Chevron, supra, at 866, and because of the agency's greater familiarity with the ever-changing facts and
circumstances surrounding the subjects regulated, see
Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 187, 114 L. Ed. 2d 233,
111 S. Ct. 1759 (1991).
[***LEdHR4A] [4A][HN1] In determining whether
Congress has specifically addressed the question at issue,
a reviewing court should not confine itself to examining
a particular statutory provision in isolation. The meaning
-- or ambiguity -- of certain words [**1301] or phrases
may only become evident when placed in context. See
Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115, 118, 130 L. Ed. 2d 462,
115 S. Ct. 552 (1994) ("Ambiguity is a creature not of
definitional possibilities but of statutory [*133] context"). It is a "fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their con-
text and with a view to their place in the overall statutory
scheme." Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S.
803, 809, 103 L. Ed. 2d 891, 109 S. Ct. 1500 (1989). A
court must therefore interpret the statute "as a symmetrical and coherent regulatory scheme," Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 569, 131 L. Ed. 2d 1, 115 S. Ct.
1061 (1995), and "fit, if possible, all parts into an harmonious whole," FTC v. Mandel Brothers, Inc., 359 U.S.
385, 389, 3 L. Ed. 2d 893, 79 S. Ct. 818 (1959). Similarly, the meaning of one statute may be affected by other
Acts, particularly where Congress has spoken subsequently and more specifically to the topic at hand. See
United States v. Estate of Romani, 523 U.S. 517,
530-531, 140 L. Ed. 2d 710, 118 S. Ct. 1478 (1998);
United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 453, 98 L. Ed. 2d
830, 108 S. Ct. 668 (1988). In addition, we must be
guided to a degree by common sense as to the manner in
which Congress is likely to delegate a policy decision of
such economic and political magnitude to an administrative agency. Cf. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v.
American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 512 U.S. 218,
231, 129 L. Ed. 2d 182, 114 S. Ct. 2223 (1994).
[***LEdHR1C] [1C]With these principles in mind, we
find that Congress has directly spoken to the issue here
and precluded the FDA's jurisdiction to regulate tobacco
products.
A
[***LEdHR5A] [5A] [***LEdHR6] [6]Viewing
the FDCA as a whole, it is evident that one of the Act's
core objectives is to ensure that any product regulated by
the FDA is "safe" and "effective" for its intended use.
See 21 U.S.C. § 393(b)(2) (1994 ed., Supp. III) (defining
the FDA's mission); More Information for Better Patient
Care: Hearing before the Senate Committee on Labor
and Human Resources, 104th Cong., 2d Sess., 83 (1996)
(statement of FDA Deputy Commissioner Schultz) ("A
fundamental precept of drug and device regulation in this
country is that these products must be proven safe and
effective [***135] before they can be sold"). This
essential purpose pervades the FDCA. For instance, 21
U.S.C. § 393(b)(2) (1994 ed., Supp. III) defines [*134]
the FDA's "mission" to include "protecting the public
health by ensuring that . . . drugs are safe and effective"
and that "there is reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of devices intended for human use." [HN2]
The FDCA requires premarket approval of any new drug,
with some limited exceptions, and states that the FDA
"shall issue an order refusing to approve the application"
of a new drug if it is not safe and effective for its intended purpose. §§ 355(d)(1)-(2), (4)-(5). If the FDA discovers after approval that a drug is unsafe or ineffective, it
"shall, after due notice and opportunity for hearing to the
applicant, withdraw approval" of the drug. 21 U.S.C. §§
Page 162
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
355(e)(1)-(3). The Act also requires the FDA to classify
all devices into one of three categories. § 360c(b)(1).
Regardless of which category the FDA chooses, there
must be a "reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device." 21 U.S.C. §§ 360c(a)(1)(A)(i),
(B), (C) (1994 ed. and Supp. III); 61 Fed. Reg. 44412
(1996). Even the "restricted device" provision pursuant
to which the FDA promulgated the regulations at issue
here authorizes the agency to place conditions on the sale
or distribution of a device specifically when "there cannot otherwise be reasonable assurance of its safety and
effectiveness." 21 U.S.C. § 360j(e). Thus, the Act generally requires the FDA to prevent the marketing of any
drug or device where the "potential for inflicting death or
physical injury is not offset by the possibility of therapeutic benefit." United States v. Rutherford, 442 U.S.
544, 556, 61 L. Ed. 2d 68, 99 S. Ct. 2470 (1979).
[**1302]
[***LEdHR5B] [5B]In its rulemaking proceeding, the
FDA quite exhaustively documented that "tobacco products are unsafe," "dangerous," and "cause great pain and
suffering from illness." 61 Fed. Reg. 44412 (1996). It
found that the consumption of tobacco products "presents extraordinary health risks," and that "tobacco use is
the single leading cause of preventable death in the
United States." Id., at 44398. It stated that "more than
400,000 people die each year from tobacco-related illnesses, such as cancer, respiratory illnesses, and [*135]
heart disease, often suffering long and painful deaths,"
and that "tobacco alone kills more people each year in
the United States than acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), car accidents, alcohol, homicides, illegal
drugs, suicides, and fires, combined." Ibid. Indeed, the
FDA characterized smoking as "a pediatric disease," id.,
at 44421, because "one out of every three young people
who become regular smokers . . . will die prematurely as
a result," id., at 44399.
These findings logically imply that, if tobacco
products were "devices" under the FDCA, the FDA
would be required to remove them from the market.
Consider, first, the FDCA's provisions concerning the
misbranding of drugs or devices. [HN3] The Act prohibits "the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food, drug, device, or cosmetic
that is adultered or misbranded." 21 U.S.C. § 331(a). In
light of the FDA's findings, two distinct FDCA provisions would render cigarettes and smokeless tobacco
misbranded devices. [HN4] First, § 352(j) deems a drug
or device [***136] misbranded "if it is dangerous to
health when used in the dosage or manner, or with the
frequency or duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling thereof." The FDA's findings
make clear that tobacco products are "dangerous to
health" when used in the manner prescribed. Second,
[HN5] a drug or device is misbranded under the Act
"unless its labeling bears . . . adequate directions for use .
. . in such manner and form, as are necessary for the protection of users," except where such directions are "not
necessary for the protection of the public health." §
352(f)(1). Given the FDA's conclusions concerning the
health consequences of tobacco use, there are no directions that could adequately protect consumers. That is,
there are no directions that could make tobacco products
safe for obtaining their intended effects. Thus, were tobacco products within the FDA's jurisdiction, the Act
would deem them misbranded devices that could not be
introduced into interstate [*136] commerce. Contrary
to the dissent's contention, the Act admits no remedial
discretion once it is evident that the device is misbranded.
Second, [HN6] the FDCA requires the FDA to place
all devices that it regulates into one of three classifications. See § 360c(b)(1). The agency relies on a device's
classification in determining the degree of control and
regulation necessary to ensure that there is "a reasonable
assurance of safety and effectiveness." 61 Fed. Reg.
44412 (1996). The FDA has yet to classify tobacco
products. Instead, the regulations at issue here represent
so-called "general controls," which the Act entitles the
agency to impose in advance of classification. See id., at
44404-44405. [HN7] Although the FDCA prescribes no
deadline for device classification, the FDA has stated
that it will classify tobacco products "in a future rulemaking" as required by the Act. Id., at 44412. Given the
FDA's findings regarding the health consequences of
tobacco use, the agency would have to place cigarettes
and smokeless tobacco in Class III because, even after
the application of the Act's available controls, they would
"present a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury." 21 U.S.C. § 360c(a)(1)(C). As Class III devices,
tobacco products would be subject to the FDCA's premarket approval process. See 21 U.S.C. § 360c(a)(1)(C)
(1994 ed., Supp. III); 21 U.S.C. § 360e; 61 Fed. Reg.
44412 (1996). Under these provisions, the FDA would
be [**1303] prohibited from approving an application
for premarket approval without "a showing of reasonable
assurance that such device is safe under the conditions of
use prescribed, recommended, or suggested on the labeling thereof." 21 U.S.C. § 360e(d)(2)(A). In view of the
FDA's conclusions regarding the health effects of tobacco use, the agency would have no basis for finding any
such reasonable assurance of safety. Thus, once the FDA
fulfilled its statutory obligation to classify tobacco products, it could not allow them to be marketed.
[*137] The FDCA's misbranding and device classification provisions therefore make evident that [HN8]
Page 163
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
were the FDA to regulate cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, the Act would require the agency to ban them. In
fact, based on these provisions, the FDA itself has previously taken the position that if tobacco products were
within its jurisdiction, "they would have to be removed
from the market because it would be impossible to prove
they [***137] were safe for their intended use." Public
Health Cigarette Amendments of 1971: Hearings before
the Commerce Subcommittee on S. 1454, 92d Cong., 2d
Sess., 239 (1972) (hereinafter 1972 Hearings) (statement
of FDA Commissioner Charles Edwards). See also Cigarette Labeling and Advertising: Hearings before the
House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
88th Cong., 2d Sess., 18 (1964) (hereinafter 1964 Hearings) (statement of Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare (HEW) Secretary Anthony Celebrezze that proposed amendments to the FDCA that would have given
the FDA jurisdiction over "smoking products" "might
well completely outlaw at least cigarettes").
Congress, however, has foreclosed the removal of
tobacco products from the market. A provision of the
United States Code currently in force states that "the
marketing of tobacco constitutes one of the greatest basic
industries of the United States with ramifying activities
which directly affect interstate and foreign commerce at
every point, and stable conditions therein are necessary
to the general welfare." 7 U.S.C. § 1311(a). More importantly, Congress has directly addressed the problem
of tobacco and health through legislation on six occasions since 1965. See Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act (FCLAA), Pub. L. 89-92, 79 Stat. 282;
Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969, Pub. L.
91-222, 84 Stat. 87; Alcohol and Drug Abuse Amendments of 1983, Pub. L. 98-24, 97 Stat. 175; Comprehensive Smoking Education Act, Pub. L. 98-474, 98 Stat.
2200; Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-252, 100 Stat. 30; Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental [*138] Health Administration Reorganization Act, Pub. L. 102-321, § 202,
106 Stat. 394. When Congress enacted these statutes, the
adverse health consequences of tobacco use were well
known, as were nicotine's pharmacological effects. See,
e.g., U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, U.S.
Surgeon General's Advisory Committee, Smoking and
Health 25-40, 69-75 (1964) (hereinafter 1964 Surgeon
General's Report) (concluding that cigarette smoking
causes lung cancer, coronary artery disease, and chronic
bronchitis and emphysema, and that nicotine has various
pharmacological effects, including stimulation, tranquilization, and appetite suppression); U.S. Dept. of Health
and Human Services, Public Health Service, Health
Consequences of Smoking for Women 7-12 (1980)
(finding that mortality rates for lung cancer, chronic lung
disease, and coronary heart disease are increased for both
women and men smokers, and that smoking during
pregnancy is associated with significant adverse health
effects on the unborn fetus and newborn child); U.S.
Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Why People Smoke Cigarettes (1983), in Smoking
Prevention Education Act, Hearings on H. R. 1824 before the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment of
the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 98th
Cong., 1st [**1304] Sess., 32-37 (1983) (hereinafter
1983 House Hearings) (stating that smoking is "the most
widespread example of drug dependence in our country,"
and that cigarettes "affect the chemistry of the brain and
nervous system"); U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, The Health Consequences
of Smoking: Nicotine Addiction 6-9, 145-239 (1988)
(hereinafter 1988 Surgeon General's Report) (concluding
that tobacco products are addicting [***138] in much
the same way as heroin and cocaine, and that nicotine is
the drug that causes addiction). Nonetheless, Congress
stopped well short of ordering a ban. Instead, it has generally regulated the labeling and advertisement of tobacco products, expressly providing that it is the policy of
Congress that "commerce and the national [*139]
economy may be . . . protected to the maximum extent
consistent with" consumers "being adequately informed
about any adverse health effects." 15 U.S.C. § 1331.
Congress' decisions to regulate labeling and advertising
and to adopt the express policy of protecting "commerce
and the national economy . . . to the maximum extent"
reveal its intent that tobacco products remain on the
market. Indeed, the collective premise of these statutes is
that cigarettes and smokeless tobacco will continue to be
sold in the United States. [HN9] A ban of tobacco products by the FDA would therefore plainly contradict congressional policy.
The FDA apparently recognized this dilemma and
concluded, somewhat ironically, that tobacco products
are actually "safe" within the meaning of the FDCA. In
promulgating its regulations, the agency conceded that
"tobacco products are unsafe, as that term is conventionally understood." 61 Fed. Reg. 44412 (1996). Nonetheless, the FDA reasoned that, in determining whether a
device is safe under the Act, it must consider "not only
the risks presented by a product but also any of the
countervailing effects of use of that product, including
the consequences of not permitting the product to be
marketed." Id., at 44412-44413. Applying this standard,
the FDA found that, because of the high level of addiction among tobacco users, a ban would likely be "dangerous." Id., at 44413. In particular, current tobacco users could suffer from extreme withdrawal, the health care
system and available pharmaceuticals might not be able
to meet the treatment demands of those suffering from
withdrawal, and a black market offering cigarettes even
more dangerous than those currently sold legally would
likely develop. Ibid. The FDA therefore concluded that,
Page 164
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
"while taking cigarettes and smokeless tobacco off the
market could prevent some people from becoming addicted and reduce death and disease for others, the record
does not establish that such a ban is the appropriate public health response under the act." Id., at 44398.
[*140] It may well be, as the FDA asserts, that
"these factors must be considered when developing a
regulatory scheme that achieves the best public health
result for these products." Id., at 44413. But the FDA's
judgment that leaving tobacco products on the market "is
more effective in achieving public health goals than a
ban," ibid., is no substitute for the specific safety determinations required by the FDCA's various operative provisions. Several provisions in the Act require the FDA to
determine that the product itself is safe as used by consumers. That is, the product's probable therapeutic benefits must outweigh its risk of harm. See United States v.
Rutherford, 442 U.S. at 555 ("The Commissioner generally considers a drug safe when the expected therapeutic
gain justifies the risk entailed by its use"). In contrast, the
FDA's conception of safety would allow the agency, with
respect to each provision of the FDCA that requires the
agency to determine a product's "safety" or "dangerousness," to compare the aggregate health effects of alternative [***139] administrative actions. This is a qualitatively different inquiry. Thus, although the FDA has
concluded that a ban would be "dangerous," it [**1305]
has not concluded that tobacco products are "safe" as that
term is used throughout the Act.
Consider 21 U.S.C. § 360c(a)(2), which specifies
those factors that the FDA may consider in determining
the safety and effectiveness of a device for purposes of
classification, performance standards, and premarket
approval. For all devices regulated by the FDA, there
must at least be a "reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of the device." See 21 U.S.C. §§
360c(a)(1)(A)(i), (B), (C) (1994 ed. and Supp. III); 61
Fed. Reg. 44412 (1996). [HN10] Title 21 U.S.C. §
360c(a)(2) provides that
"the safety and effectiveness of a device are to be
determined -"(A) with respect to the persons for whose use the
device is represented or intended,
[*141] "(B) with respect to the conditions of use
prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling of
the device, and
"(C) weighing any probable benefit to health from
the use of the device against any probable risk of injury
or illness from such use."
A straightforward reading of this provision dictates
that the FDA must weigh the probable therapeutic benefits of the device to the consumer against the probable
risk of injury. Applied to tobacco products, the inquiry is
whether their purported benefits -- satisfying addiction,
stimulation and sedation, and weight control -- outweigh
the risks to health from their use. To accommodate the
FDA's conception of safety, however, one must read
"any probable benefit to health" to include the benefit to
public health stemming from adult consumers' continued
use of tobacco products, even though the reduction of
tobacco use is the raison d'etre of the regulations. In
other words, the FDA is forced to contend that the very
evil it seeks to combat is a "benefit to health." This is
implausible.
The FDA's conception of safety is also incompatible
with the FDCA's misbranding provision. Again, § 352(j)
provides that a product is "misbranded" if "it is dangerous to health when used in the dosage or manner, or with
the frequency or duration prescribed, recommended, or
suggested in the labeling thereof." According to the
FDA's understanding, a product would be "dangerous to
health," and therefore misbranded under § 352(j), when,
in comparison to leaving the product on the market, a
ban would not produce "adverse health consequences" in
aggregate. Quite simply, these are different inquiries.
Although banning a particular product might be detrimental to public health in aggregate, the product could
still be "dangerous to health" when used as directed.
[HN11] Section 352(j) focuses on dangers to the consumer from use of the product, not those stemming from
the agency's remedial measures.
[*142] Consequently, the analogy made by the
FDA and the dissent to highly toxic drugs used in the
treatment of various cancers is unpersuasive. See 61 Fed.
Reg. 44413 (1996); post, at 17 (opinion of BREYER, J.).
Although "dangerous" in some sense, these drugs are
safe within the meaning of the Act because, [***140]
for certain patients, the therapeutic benefits outweigh the
risk of harm. Accordingly, such drugs cannot properly be
described as "dangerous to health" under 21 U.S.C. §
352(j). The same is not true for tobacco products. As the
FDA has documented in great detail, cigarettes and
smokeless tobacco are an unsafe means to obtaining any
pharmacological effect.
[***LEdHR5C] [5C] [***LEdHR7] [7]The dissent contends that our conclusion means that "the FDCA
requires the FDA to ban outright 'dangerous' drugs or
devices," post, at 14, and that this is a "perverse" reading
of the statute, id., at 14, 21. This misunderstands our
holding. The FDA, consistent with the FDCA, may
clearly regulate many "dangerous" products without
banning them. Indeed, virtually every drug or device
poses dangers under certain conditions. [HN12] What the
[**1306] FDA may not do is conclude that a drug or
device cannot be used safely for any therapeutic purpose
and yet, at the same time, allow that product to remain on
Page 165
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
the market. Such regulation is incompatible with the
FDCA's core objective of ensuring that every drug or
device is safe and effective.
[***LEdHR1D]
[1D] [***LEdHR5D]
[5D]
[***LEdHR8] [8]Considering the FDCA as a whole, it
is clear that Congress intended to exclude tobacco products from the FDA's jurisdiction. A fundamental precept
of the FDCA is that any product regulated by the FDA -but not banned -- must be safe for its intended use. Various provisions of the Act make clear that this refers to
the safety of using the product to obtain its intended effects, not the public health ramifications of alternative
administrative actions by the FDA. That is, the FDA
must determine that there is a reasonable assurance that
the product's therapeutic benefits outweigh the risk of
harm to the consumer. According to this standard,
[*143] the FDA has concluded that, although tobacco
products might be effective in delivering certain pharmacological effects, they are "unsafe" and "dangerous"
when used for these purposes. Consequently, if tobacco
products were within the FDA's jurisdiction, the Act
would require the FDA to remove them from the market
entirely. But a ban would contradict Congress' clear intent as expressed in its more recent, tobacco-specific
legislation. The inescapable conclusion is that there is no
room for tobacco products within the FDCA's regulatory
scheme. If they cannot be used safely for any therapeutic
purpose, and yet they cannot be banned, they simply do
not fit.
B
[***LEdHR4B] [4B] [***LEdHR9] [9]In determining whether Congress has spoken directly to the
FDA's authority to regulate tobacco, we must also consider in greater detail the tobacco-specific legislation that
Congress has enacted over the past 35 years. At the time
a statute is enacted, it may have a range of plausible
meanings. Over time, however, subsequent acts can
shape or focus those meanings. The "classic judicial task
of reconciling many laws enacted over time, and getting
them to 'make sense' in combination, necessarily assumes
that the implications of a statute may be altered by the
implications of a later statute." United States v. Fausto,
484 U.S. at 453. This is particularly so where the scope
of the earlier statute is broad but the subsequent statutes
more specifically address the topic at hand. [***141]
As we recognized recently in United States v. Estate of
Romani, "a specific policy embodied in a later federal
statute should control our construction of the [earlier]
statute, even though it has not been expressly amended."
523 U.S. at 530-531.
Congress has enacted six separate pieces of legislation since 1965 addressing the problem of tobacco use
and human health. See supra, at 14. Those statutes,
among other things, require that health warnings appear
on all packaging and in all print and outdoor advertisements, see [*144] 15 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1333, 4402;
prohibit the advertisement of tobacco products through
"any medium of electronic communication" subject to
regulation by the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC), see §§ 1335, 4402(f); require the Secretary of
Health and Human Services (HHS) to report every three
years to Congress on research findings concerning "the
addictive property of tobacco," 42 U.S.C. §
290aa-2(b)(2); and make States' receipt of certain federal
block grants contingent on their making it unlawful "for
any manufacturer, retailer, or distributor of tobacco
products to sell or distribute any such product to any
individual under the age of 18," § 300x-26(a)(1).
[***LEdHR1E] [1E]In adopting each statute,
Congress has acted against the backdrop of the FDA's
consistent and repeated statements that it lacked authority under the FDCA to regulate tobacco absent claims of
therapeutic [**1307] benefit by the manufacturer. In
fact, on several occasions over this period, and after the
health consequences of tobacco use and nicotine's pharmacological effects had become well known, Congress
considered and rejected bills that would have granted the
FDA such jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, it is
evident that Congress' tobacco-specific statutes have
effectively ratified the FDA's long-held position that it
lacks jurisdiction under the FDCA to regulate tobacco
products. Congress has created a distinct regulatory
scheme to address the problem of tobacco and health,
and that scheme, as presently constructed, precludes any
role for the FDA.
On January 11, 1964, the Surgeon General released
the report of the Advisory Committee on Smoking and
Health. That report documented the deleterious health
effects of smoking in great detail, concluding, in relevant
part, "that cigarette smoking contributes substantially to
mortality from certain specific diseases and to the overall
death rate." 1964 Surgeon General's Report 31. It also
identified the pharmacological effects of nicotine, including "stimulation," "tranquilization," and "suppression
of appetite." Id., at 74-75. Seven days after the report's
release, the Federal Trade [*145] Commission (FTC)
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking, see 29 Fed. Reg.
530-532 (1964), and in June 1964, the FTC promulgated
a final rule requiring cigarette manufacturers "to disclose, clearly and prominently, in all advertising and on
every pack, box, carton or other container . . . that cigarette smoking is dangerous to health and may cause death
from cancer and other diseases," id., at 8325. The rule
was to become effective January 1, 1965, but, on a request from Congress, the FTC postponed enforcement
for six months. See Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505
Page 166
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
U.S. 504, 513-514, 120 L. Ed. 2d 407, 112 S. Ct. 2608
(1992). [***142]
In response to the Surgeon General's report and the
FTC's proposed rule, Congress convened hearings to
consider legislation addressing "the tobacco problem."
1964 Hearings 1. During those deliberations, FDA representatives testified before Congress that the agency
lacked jurisdiction under the FDCA to regulate tobacco
products. Surgeon General Terry was asked during hearings in 1964 whether HEW had the "authority to brand or
label the packages of cigarettes or to control the advertising there." Id., at 56. The Surgeon General stated that
"we do not have such authority in existing laws governing the . . . Food and Drug Administration." Ibid. Similarly, FDA Deputy Commissioner Rankin testified in
1965 that "the Food and Drug Administration has no
jurisdiction under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
over tobacco, unless it bears drug claims." Cigarette Labeling and Advertising -- 1965: Hearings on H. R. 2248
before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 193 (hereinafter 1965
Hearings). See also Letter to Directors of Bureaus, Divisions and Directors of Districts from FDA Bureau of
Enforcement (May 24, 1963), in 1972 Hearings 240
("Tobacco marketed for chewing or smoking without
accompanying therapeutic claims, does not meet the
definitions in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for
food, drug, device or cosmetic"). In fact, HEW Secretary Celebrezze urged Congress not to amend the FDCA
to cover [*146] "smoking products" because, in light
of the findings in the Surgeon General's report, such a
"provision might well completely outlaw at least cigarettes. This would be contrary to what, we understand, is
intended or what, in the light of our experience with the
18th amendment, would be acceptable to the American
people." 1964 Hearings 18.
The FDA's disavowal of jurisdiction was consistent
with the position that it had taken since the agency's inception. As the FDA concedes, it never asserted authority to regulate tobacco products as customarily marketed
until it promulgated the regulations at issue here. See
Brief for Petitioners 37; see also Brief for Appellee
(FDA) in Action on Smoking and Health [**1308] v.
Harris, 210 U.S. App. D.C. 123, 655 F.2d 236 (CADC
1980), in 9 Rec. in No. 97-1604 (CA4), Tab No. 4, pp.
14-15 ("In the 73 years since the enactment of the original Food and Drug Act, and in the 41 years since the
promulgation of the modern Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act, the FDA has repeatedly informed Congress that
cigarettes are beyond the scope of the statute absent
health claims establishing a therapeutic intent on behalf
of the manufacturer or vendor").
[***LEdHR1F] [1F] [***LEdHR10] [10]The FDA's
position was also consistent with Congress' specific intent when it enacted the FDCA. Before the Act's adoption in 1938, the FDA's predecessor agency, the Bureau
of Chemistry, announced that it lacked authority to regulate tobacco products under the Pure Food and Drug Act
of 1906, ch. 3915, 34 Stat. 768, unless they were marketed with therapeutic claims. See U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Bureau of Chemistry, 13 Service and Regulatory
Announcements 24 (Apr. 1914) (Feb. 1914 Announcements P13, Opinion of Chief of Bureau C. L. Alsberg).
In 1929, Congress considered and rejected a bill "to
amend the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, by extending its provisions to tobacco and tobacco products."
S. 1468, 71st Cong., 1st Sess., 1. See also 71 Cong. Rec.
2589 (1929) (remarks of Sen. Smoot). And, [***143]
as the FDA admits, there is no evidence in the text of the
FDCA or its legislative history that Congress in 1938
even considered [*147] the applicability of the Act to
tobacco products. See Brief for Petitioners 22, n. 4. Given the economic and political significance of the tobacco
industry at the time, it is extremely unlikely that Congress could have intended to place tobacco within the
ambit of the FDCA absent any discussion of the matter.
Of course, whether the Congress that enacted the FDCA
specifically intended the Act to cover tobacco products is
not determinative; "it is ultimately the provisions of our
laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators
by which we are governed." Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 79, 140 L. Ed. 2d 201,
118 S. Ct. 998 (1998); see also TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153,
185, 98 S. Ct. 2279, 57 L. Ed. 2d 117 (1978) ("It is not
for us to speculate, much less act, on whether Congress
would have altered its stance had the specific events of
this case been anticipated"). Nonetheless, this intent is
certainly relevant to understanding the basis for the
FDA's representations to Congress and the background
against which Congress enacted subsequent tobacco-specific legislation.
Moreover, before enacting the FCLAA in 1965,
Congress considered and rejected several proposals to
give the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco. In April
1963, Representative Udall introduced a bill "to amend
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act so as to make
that Act applicable to smoking products." H. R. 5973,
88th Cong., 1st Sess., 1. Two months later, Senator
Moss introduced an identical bill in the Senate. S. 1682,
88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963). In discussing his proposal
on the Senate floor, Senator Moss explained that "this
amendment simply places smoking products under FDA
jurisdiction, along with foods, drugs, and cosmetics."
109 Cong. Rec. 10322 (1963). In December 1963, Representative Rhodes introduced another bill that would
have amended the FDCA "by striking out 'food, drug,
device, or cosmetic, each place where it appears therein
Page 167
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
and inserting in lieu thereof 'food, drug, device, cosmetic, or smoking product.'" H. R. 9512, 88th Cong., 1st
Sess., § 3 (1963). And in January 1965, five months before passage of [*148] the FCLAA, Representative
Udall again introduced a bill to amend the FDCA "to
make that Act applicable to smoking products." H. R.
2248, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 1. None of these proposals
became law.
[***LEdHR1G]
[1G]
[***LEdHR11A]
[11A]Congress ultimately decided in 1965 to subject
tobacco products to the less extensive regulatory scheme
of the FCLAA, which created a "comprehensive Federal
program to deal with cigarette labeling and advertising
with respect to any relationship between smoking and
health." [**1309] Pub. L. 89-92, § 2, 79 Stat. 282. The
FCLAA rejected any regulation of advertising, but it
required the warning, "Caution: Cigarette Smoking May
Be Hazardous to Your Health," to appear on all cigarette
packages. Id., § 4, 79 Stat. 283. In the Act's "Declaration
of Policy," Congress stated that its objective was to balance the goals of ensuring that "the public may be adequately informed that cigarette smoking may be hazardous to health" and protecting "commerce and the national
economy . . . to the maximum extent." Id., § 2, 79 Stat.
282 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1331).
Not only did Congress reject the proposals to grant
the FDA jurisdiction, but it explicitly preempted any
[***144] other regulation of cigarette labeling: "No
statement relating to smoking and health, other than the
statement required by . . . this Act, shall be required on
any cigarette package." Id., § 5(a), 79 Stat. 283. The regulation of product labeling, however, is an integral aspect
of the FDCA, both as it existed in 1965 and today. The
labeling requirements currently imposed by the FDCA,
which are essentially identical to those in force in 1965,
require the FDA to regulate the labeling of drugs and
devices to protect the safety of consumers. See 21 U.S.C.
§ 352; 21 U.S.C. § 352 (1964 ed. and Supp. IV). As discussed earlier, the Act requires that all products bear
"adequate directions for use . . . as are necessary for the
protection of users," 21 U.S.C. § 352(f)(1); 21 U.S.C. §
352(f)(1) (1964 ed.); requires that all products provide
"adequate warnings against use in those pathological
[*149] conditions or by children where its use may be
dangerous to health," 21 U.S.C. § 352(f)(2); 21 U.S.C. §
352(f)(2) (1964 ed.); and deems a product misbranded "if
it is dangerous to health when used in the dosage or
manner, or with the frequency or duration prescribed,
recommended, or suggested in the labeling thereof," 21
U.S.C. § 352(j); 21 U.S.C. § 352(j) (1964 ed.). In this
sense, the FCLAA was -- and remains -- incompatible
with FDA regulation of tobacco products. This is not to
say that the FCLAA's preemption provision by itself
necessarily foreclosed FDA jurisdiction. See Cipollone v.
Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. at 518-519. But it is an
important factor in assessing whether Congress ratified
the agency's position -- that is, whether Congress adopted
a regulatory approach to the problem of tobacco and
health that contemplated no role for the FDA.
Further, the FCLAA evidences Congress' intent to
preclude any administrative agency from exercising significant policymaking authority on the subject of smoking and health. In addition to prohibiting any additional
requirements for cigarette labeling, the FCLAA provided
that "no statement relating to smoking and health shall be
required in the advertising of any cigarettes the packages
of which are labeled in conformity with the provisions of
this Act." Pub. L. 89-92, § 5(b), 79 Stat. 283. Thus, in
reaction to the FTC's attempt to regulate cigarette labeling and advertising, Congress enacted a statute reserving
exclusive control over both subjects to itself.
Subsequent tobacco-specific legislation followed a
similar pattern. By the FCLAA's own terms, the prohibition on any additional cigarette labeling or advertising
regulations relating to smoking and health was to expire
July 1, 1969. See § 10, 79 Stat. 284. In anticipation of the
provision's expiration, both the FCC and the FTC proposed rules governing the advertisement of cigarettes.
See 34 Fed. Reg. 1959 (1969) (FCC proposed rule to
"ban the broadcast of cigarette commercials by radio and
television stations"); id., at 7917 [*150] (FTC proposed rule requiring manufacturers to disclose on all
packaging and in all print advertising "'that cigarette
smoking is dangerous to health and may cause death
from cancer, coronary heart disease, chronic bronchitis,
pulmonary emphysema, and other diseases'"). After debating the proper role for administrative [**1310]
agencies in the regulation of tobacco, see generally Cigarette Labeling and Advertising -- 1969: Hearings before
the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 2 (1969), Congress
amended [***145] the FCLAA by banning cigarette
advertisements "on any medium of electronic communication subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission" and strengthening the warning
required to appear on cigarette packages. Public Health
Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969, Pub. L. 91-222, §§ 4, 6,
84 Stat. 88-89. Importantly, Congress extended indefinitely the prohibition on any other regulation of cigarette
labeling with respect to smoking and health (again despite the importance of labeling regulation under the
FDCA). § 5(a), 84 Stat. 88 (codified at 15 U.S.C. §
1334(a)). Moreover, it expressly forbade the FTC from
taking any action on its pending rule until July 1, 1971,
and it required the FTC, if it decided to proceed with its
rule thereafter, to notify Congress at least six months in
advance of the rule's becoming effective. § 7(a), 84 Stat.
89. As the chairman of the House committee in which
Page 168
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
the bill originated stated, "the Congress -- the body
elected by the people -- must make the policy determinations involved in this legislation -- and not some agency
made up of appointed officials." 116 Cong. Rec. 7920
(1970) (remarks of Rep. Staggers).
rettes is [**1311] to be the domain of Congress," and
that "labeling or banning cigarettes is a step that can be
taken only by the Congress. Any such move by FDA
would be inconsistent with the clear congressional intent." Ibid.
Four years later, after Congress had transferred the
authority to regulate substances covered by the Hazardous Substances Act (HSA) from the FDA to the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), the American Public Health Association, joined by Senator Moss,
petitioned the CPSC to regulate cigarettes yielding more
than 21 milligrams of tar. See Action on Smoking and
Health v. Harris, 210 U.S. App. D.C. 123, 655 F.2d 236,
[*151] 241 (CADC 1980); R. Kluger, Ashes to Ashes
375-376 (1996). After the CPSC determined that it
lacked authority under the HSA to regulate cigarettes, a
District Court held that the Act did, in fact, grant the
CPSC such jurisdiction and ordered it to reexamine the
petition. See American Public Health Association v.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, [1972-1975
Transfer Binder] CCH Consumer Prod. Safety Guide
P75,081 (DC 1975), vacated as moot, No. 75-1863
(CADC 1976). Before the CPSC could take any action,
however, Congress mooted the issue by adopting legislation that eliminated the agency's authority to regulate
"tobacco and tobacco products." Consumer Product
Safety Commission Improvements Act of 1976, Pub. L.
94-284, § 3(c), 90 Stat. 503 (codified at 15 U.S.C. §
1261(f)(2)). Senator Moss acknowledged that the "legislation, in effect, reversed" the District Court's decision,
121 Cong. Rec. 23563 (1975), and the FDA later observed that the episode was "particularly" "indicative of
the policy of Congress to limit the regulatory authority
over cigarettes by Federal Agencies," Letter to Action on
Smoking and Health (ASH) Executive Director Banzhaf
from FDA Commissioner Goyan (Nov. 25, 1980), App.
59. A separate statement in the Senate Report underscored that the legislation's purpose was to "unmistakably reaffirm the clear mandate of the Congress that the
basic regulation of tobacco and tobacco products is governed by the legislation dealing with the subject, . . . and
that any further regulation in this sensitive and complex
area must be reserved for specific Congressional action."
S. Rep. No. 94-251, p. 43 (1975) (additional views of
Sens. Hartke, Hollings, Ford, Stevens, and Beall).
In 1977, ASH filed a citizen petition requesting that
the FDA regulate cigarettes, citing many of the same
grounds that motivated the FDA's rulemaking here. See
Citizen Petition, No. 77P-0185 (May 26, 1977), 10 Rec.
in No. 97-1604 (CA4), Tab No. 22, pp. 1-10. ASH asserted that nicotine was highly addictive and had strong
physiological effects on the body; that those effects were
"intended" because consumers use tobacco products precisely to obtain those effects; and that tobacco causes
thousands of premature deaths annually. Ibid. In denying
ASH's petition, FDA Commissioner Kennedy stated that
"the interpretation of the Act by FDA consistently has
been that cigarettes are not a drug unless health claims
are made by the vendors." Letter to ASH Executive Director Banzhaf (Dec. 5, 1977), App. 47. After the matter
proceeded to litigation, the FDA argued in its brief to the
Court of Appeals that "cigarettes are not comprehended
within the statutory definition of the term 'drug' absent
objective evidence that vendors represent or intend that
their products be used as a drug." Brief for Appellee in
Action on Smoking and Health v. Harris, 210 U.S. App.
D.C. 123, 655 F.2d 236 (CADC 1980), 9 Rec. in No.
97-1604 (CA4), Tab No. 4, pp. 27-28. The FDA also
contended that Congress had "long been aware that the
FDA does not consider cigarettes to be within its regulatory authority in the absence of health claims made on
behalf of the manufacturer or vendor," and that, because
"Congress has never acted to disturb the agency's interpretation," it had "acquiesced in the FDA's interpretation
of the statutory limits on its authority to regulate cigarettes." Id., at 23, 27, n.23. The Court of Appeals upheld
the FDA's position, concluding that "if the statute
[*153] requires expansion, that is the job of Congress."
Action on Smoking and Health v. Harris, 655 F.2d at
243. In 1980, the FDA also denied a request by ASH to
commence rulemaking proceedings to establish the
agency's jurisdiction to regulate cigarettes as devices.
See Letter to ASH Executive Director Banzhaf from
FDA Commissioner Goyan (Nov. 25, 1980), App. 50-51.
The agency stated that "insofar as rulemaking would
relate to cigarettes or attached filters as customarily
marketed, we have concluded that FDA has no jurisdiction under section 201(h) of the Act [21 U.S.C. §
321(h)]." Id., at 67.
Meanwhile, the FDA continued to maintain that it
lacked jurisdiction under the FDCA to regulate tobacco
[***146] products as customarily marketed. In 1972,
FDA Commissioner Edwards testified before Congress
that "cigarettes recommended for smoking pleasure are
beyond the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act."
1972 Hearings 239, 242. He further [*152] stated that
the FDA believed that the Public Health Cigarette
Smoking Act "demonstrates that the regulation of ciga-
In 1983, Congress again considered legislation on
the subject of smoking and health. HHS Assistant Secretary Brandt testified that, in addition to being "a major
cause of cancer," smoking is a "major cause of heart disease" and other serious illnesses, and can result in "un-
Page 169
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
favorable pregnancy outcomes." 1983 House Hearings
19-20. He also stated that it was "well-established that
cigarette smoking is a drug dependence, and that smoking is addictive for many people." Id., at 20. Nonetheless, Assistant [***147] Secretary Brandt maintained
that "the issue of regulation of tobacco . . . is something
that Congress has reserved to itself, and we do not within
the Department have the authority to regulate nor are we
seeking such authority." Id., at 74. He also testified before the Senate, stating that, despite the evidence of tobacco's health effects and addictiveness, the Department's view was that "Congress has assumed the responsibility of regulating . . . cigarettes." Smoking Prevention
and Education Act: Hearings on S. 772 before the Senate
Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 98th Cong.,
1st Sess., 56 (1983) (hereinafter 1983 Senate Hearings).
[***LEdHR1H]
[1H]Against this backdrop,
Congress enacted three additional tobacco-specific statutes over the next four years that incrementally expanded
its regulatory scheme for tobacco products. In 1983,
Congress adopted the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Amendments, Pub. L. 98-24, 97 Stat. 175 (codified at [*154]
42 U.S.C. § 290aa et seq.), which require [**1312]
the Secretary of HHS to report to Congress every three
years on the "addictive property of tobacco" and to include recommendations for action that the Secretary may
deem appropriate. A year later, Congress enacted the
Comprehensive Smoking Education Act, Pub. L. 98-474,
98 Stat. 2200, which amended the FCLAA by again
modifying the prescribed warning. Notably, during debate on the Senate floor, Senator Hawkins argued that
the Act was necessary in part because "under the Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act, the Congress exempted tobacco
products." 130 Cong. Rec. 26953 (1984). And in 1986,
Congress enacted the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986 (CSTHEA), Pub. L.
99-252, 100 Stat. 30 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 4401 et
seq.), which essentially extended the regulatory provisions of the FCLAA to smokeless tobacco products.
Like the FCLAA, the CSTHEA provided that "no statement relating to the use of smokeless tobacco products
and health, other than the statements required by [the
Act], shall be required by any Federal agency to appear
on any package . . . of a smokeless tobacco product." §
7(a), 100 Stat. 34 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 4406(a)).
Thus, as with cigarettes, Congress reserved for itself an
aspect of smokeless tobacco regulation that is particularly important to the FDCA's regulatory scheme.
In 1988, the Surgeon General released a report
summarizing the abundant scientific literature demonstrating that "cigarettes and other forms of tobacco are
addicting," and that "nicotine is psychoactive" and
"causes physical dependence characterized by a withdrawal syndrome that usually accompanies nicotine ab-
stinence." 1988 Surgeon General's Report 14. The report
further concluded that the "pharmacologic and behavioral processes that determine tobacco addiction are similar
to those that determine addiction to drugs such as heroin
and cocaine." Id., at 15. In the same year, FDA Commissioner Young stated before Congress that "it doesn't look
like it is possible to regulate [tobacco] under the [*155]
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act even though smoking, I
think, has been widely recognized as being harmful to
human health." Rural Development, Agriculture, and
Related Agencies Appropriations for 1989: Hearings
before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, 100th Cong., 2d Sess., 409 (1988). At the
[***148] same hearing, the FDA's General Counsel
testified that "what is fairly important in FDA law is
whether a product has a therapeutic purpose," and "cigarettes themselves are not used for a therapeutic purpose
as that concept is ordinarily understood." Id., at 410.
Between 1987 and 1989, Congress considered three
more bills that would have amended the FDCA to grant
the FDA jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products. See H.
R. 3294, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987); H. R. 1494,
101st Cong., 1st Sess. (1989); S. 769, 101st Cong., 1st
Sess. (1989). As before, Congress rejected the proposals.
In 1992, Congress instead adopted the Alcohol, Drug
Abuse, and Mental Health Administration Reorganization Act, Pub. L. 102-321, § 202, 106 Stat. 394 (codified
at 42 U.S.C. § 300x et seq.), which creates incentives for
States to regulate the retail sale of tobacco products by
making States' receipt of certain block grants contingent
on their prohibiting the sale of tobacco products to minors.
[***LEdHR1I]
[1I]
[***LEdHR11B]
[11B]Taken together, these actions by Congress over the
past 35 years preclude an interpretation of the FDCA that
grants the FDA jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products.
We do not rely on Congress' failure to act -- its consideration and rejection of bills that would have given the
FDA this authority -- in reaching this conclusion. Indeed,
this is not a case of simple inaction by Congress that
purportedly represents its acquiescence in an agency's
position. To the contrary, Congress has enacted several
statutes addressing the particular subject of tobacco and
health, creating a distinct regulatory scheme for [**1313]
cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. In doing so, Congress
has been aware of tobacco's health hazards and its pharmacological effects. It has also enacted this legislation
[*156] against the background of the FDA repeatedly
and consistently asserting that it lacks jurisdiction under
the FDCA to regulate tobacco products as customarily
marketed. Further, Congress has persistently acted to
preclude a meaningful role for any administrative agency
in making policy on the subject of tobacco and health.
Moreover, the substance of Congress' regulatory scheme
is, in an important respect, incompatible with FDA juris-
Page 170
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
diction. [HN13] Although the supervision of product
labeling to protect consumer health is a substantial component of the FDA's regulation of drugs and devices, see
21 U.S.C. § 352 (1994 ed. and Supp. III), the FCLAA
and the CSTHEA explicitly prohibit any federal agency
from imposing any health-related labeling requirements
on cigarettes or smokeless tobacco products, see 15 U. S.
C. §§ 1334(a), 4406(a).
Under these circumstances, it is clear that Congress'
tobacco-specific legislation has effectively ratified the
FDA's previous position that it lacks jurisdiction to regulate tobacco. As in Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461
U.S. 574, 76 L. Ed. 2d 157, 103 S. Ct. 2017 (1983), "it is
hardly conceivable that Congress -- and in this setting,
any Member of Congress -- was not abundantly aware of
what was going on." Id., at 600-601. Congress has affirmatively acted to address the issue of tobacco and
health, relying on the representations of the FDA that it
had no authority to regulate tobacco. It has created a distinct scheme to regulate the sale of tobacco products,
focused on labeling and advertising, and premised on the
belief that the FDA lacks such jurisdiction under
[***149] the FDCA. As a result, Congress' tobacco-specific statutes preclude the FDA from regulating
tobacco products as customarily marketed.
[***LEdHR1J] [1J] [***LEdHR12] [12]Although the
dissent takes issue with our discussion of the FDA's
change in position, post, at 26-29, our conclusion does
not rely on the fact that the FDA's assertion of jurisdiction represents a sharp break with its prior interpretation
of the FDCA. Certainly, an agency's initial interpretation
of a statute that it is charged with administering is not
"carved [*157] in stone." Chevron, 467 U.S. at 863;
see also Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N. A., 517
U.S. 735, 742, 135 L. Ed. 2d 25, 116 S. Ct. 1730
(1996).As we recognized in Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of
United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins.
Co., 463 U.S. 29, 77 L. Ed. 2d 443, 103 S. Ct. 2856
(1983), agencies "must be given ample latitude to 'adapt
their rules and policies to the demands of changing circumstances.'" Id., at 42 (quoting Permian Basin Area
Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 784 (1968)). The consistency
of the FDA's prior position is significant in this case for a
different reason: it provides important context to Congress' enactment of its tobacco-specific legislation. When
the FDA repeatedly informed Congress that the FDCA
does not grant it the authority to regulate tobacco products, its statements were consistent with the agency's
unwavering position since its inception, and with the
position that its predecessor agency had first taken in
1914. Although not crucial, the consistency of the FDA's
prior position bolsters the conclusion that when Congress
created a distinct regulatory scheme addressing the subject of tobacco and health, it understood that the FDA is
without jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products and
ratified that position.
[***LEdHR1K]
[1K]
[***LEdHR11C]
[11C]The dissent also argues that the proper inference to
be drawn from Congress' tobacco-specific legislation is
"critically ambivalent." Post, at 22. We disagree. In that
series of statutes, Congress crafted a specific legislative
response to the problem of tobacco and health, and it did
so with the understanding, based on repeated assertions
by the FDA, that the agency [**1314] has no authority
under the FDCA to regulate tobacco products. Moreover, Congress expressly preempted any other regulation
of the labeling of tobacco products concerning their
health consequences, even though the oversight of labeling is central to the FDCA's regulatory scheme. And in
addressing the subject, Congress consistently evidenced
its intent to preclude any federal agency from exercising
significant policymaking authority in the area. Under
these circumstances, we believe the appropriate [*158]
inference -- that Congress intended to ratify the FDA's
prior position that it lacks jurisdiction -- is unmistakable.
The dissent alternatively argues that, even if Congress' subsequent tobacco-specific legislation did, in fact,
ratify the FDA's position, that position was merely a contingent disavowal of jurisdiction. Specifically, the dissent
contends that "the FDA's traditional view was largely
premised on a perceived inability to prove the necessary
statutory 'intent' requirement." Post, at 30. A fair reading
of the FDA's representations prior to 1995, however,
demonstrates that the agency's [***150] position was
essentially unconditional. See, e.g., 1972 Hearings 239,
242 (statement of Commissioner Edwards) ("Regulation
of cigarettes is to be the domain of Congress," and "any
such move by FDA would be inconsistent with the clear
congressional intent"); 1983 House Hearings 74 (statement of Assistant Secretary Brandt) ("The issue of regulation of tobacco . . . is something that Congress has reserved to itself"); 1983 Senate Hearings 56 (statement of
Assistant Secretary Brandt) ("Congress has assumed the
responsibility of regulating . . . cigarettes"); Brief for
Appellee in Action on Smoking and Health v. Harris, 210
U.S. App. D.C. 123, 655 F.2d 236 (CADC 1980), 9 Rec.
in No. 97-1604 (CA4), Tab No. 4, pp. 27, n. 23 (because
"Congress has never acted to disturb the agency's interpretation," it "acquiesced in the FDA's interpretation").
To the extent the agency's position could be characterized as equivocal, it was only with respect to the
well-established exception of when the manufacturer
makes express claims of therapeutic benefit. See, e.g.,
1965 Hearings 193 (statement of Deputy Commissioner
Rankin) ("The Food and Drug Administration has no
jurisdiction under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
over tobacco, unless it bears drug claims"); Letter to
ASH Executive Director Banzhaf from [*159] FDA
Page 171
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
Commissioner Kennedy (Dec. 5, 1977), App. 47 ("The
interpretation of the Act by FDA consistently has been
that cigarettes are not a drug unless health claims are
made by the vendors"); Letter to ASH Executive Director Banzhaf from FDA Commissioner Goyan (Nov. 25,
1980), App. 67 ("Insofar as rulemaking would relate to
cigarettes or attached filters as customarily marketed, we
have concluded that FDA has no jurisdiction"). Thus,
what Congress ratified was the FDA's plain and resolute
position that the FDCA gives the agency no authority to
regulate tobacco products as customarily marketed.
C
[***LEdHR3B] [3B] [***LEdHR4C] [4C]Finally, our
inquiry into whether Congress has directly spoken to the
precise question at issue is shaped, at least in some
measure, by the nature of the question presented. Deference under Chevron to an agency's construction of a
statute that it administers is premised on the theory that a
statute's ambiguity constitutes an implicit delegation
from Congress to the agency to fill in the statutory gaps.
See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844. In extraordinary cases,
however, there may be reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress has intended such an implicit delegation. Cf. Breyer, Judicial Review of Questions of Law
and Policy, 38 Admin. L. Rev. 363, 370 (1986) ("A court
may also ask whether the legal question is an important
one. Congress is more likely to have focused upon, and
answered, major questions, while leaving interstitial
matters to answer themselves in the course of the statute's daily administration"). [**1315]
[***LEdHR1L]
[1L] [***LEdHR2C]
[2C]
[***LEdHR3C]
[3C] [***LEdHR4D]
[4D]
[***LEdHR11D] [11D]This is hardly an ordinary case.
Contrary to its representations to Congress since 1914,
the FDA has now asserted jurisdiction to regulate an
industry constituting a significant portion of the American economy. In fact, the FDA contends that, were it to
determine that tobacco products provide no "reasonable
assurance of safety," it would have the authority to ban
cigarettes and smokeless tobacco entirely. See Brief for
Petitioners 35-36; Reply Brief for Petitioners 14. Owing
to its unique place in American [***151] history and
society, tobacco has its own unique political history.
Congress, for better or for worse, has created a distinct
regulatory scheme for tobacco products, squarely rejected proposals to [*160] give the FDA jurisdiction over
tobacco, and repeatedly acted to preclude any agency
from exercising significant policymaking authority in the
area. Given this history and the breadth of the authority
that the FDA has asserted, we are obliged to defer not to
the agency's expansive construction of the statute, but to
Congress' consistent judgment to deny the FDA this
power.
Our decision in MCI Telecommunications Corp. v.
American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 512 U.S. 218,
129 L. Ed. 2d 182, 114 S. Ct. 2223 (1994), is instructive.
That case involved the proper construction of the term
"modify" in § 203(b) of the Communications Act of
1934. The FCC contended that, because the Act gave it
the discretion to "modify any requirement" imposed under the statute, it therefore possessed the authority to
render voluntary the otherwise mandatory requirement
that long distance carriers file their rates. Id., at 225.
We rejected the FCC's construction, finding "not the
slightest doubt" that Congress had directly spoken to the
question. Id., at 228. In reasoning even more apt here,
we concluded that "it is highly unlikely that Congress
would leave the determination of whether an industry
will be entirely, or even substantially, rate-regulated to
agency discretion -- and even more unlikely that it would
achieve that through such a subtle device as permission
to 'modify' rate-filing requirements." Id., at 231.
[***LEdHR1M] [1M]As in MCI, we are confident
that Congress could not have intended to delegate a decision of such economic and political significance to an
agency in so cryptic a fashion. To find that the FDA has
the authority to regulate tobacco products, one must not
only adopt an extremely strained understanding of "safety" as it is used throughout the Act -- a concept central to
the FDCA's regulatory scheme -- but also ignore the
plain implication of Congress' subsequent tobacco-specific legislation. It is therefore clear, based on the
FDCA's overall regulatory scheme and the subsequent
tobacco legislation, that Congress has directly spoken to
the [*161] question at issue and precluded the FDA
from regulating tobacco products.
***
[***LEdHR1N]
[1N] [***LEdHR2D]
[2D]
[***LEdHR3D] [3D] [***LEdHR4E] [4E]By no
means do we question the seriousness of the problem that
the FDA has sought to address. The agency has amply
demonstrated that tobacco use, particularly among children and adolescents, poses perhaps the single most significant threat to public health in the United States.
Nonetheless, no matter how "important, conspicuous,
and controversial" the issue, and regardless of how likely
the public is to hold the Executive Branch politically
accountable, post, at 31, [HN14] an administrative
agency's power to regulate in the public interest must
always be grounded in a valid grant of authority from
Congress. And "'in our anxiety to effectuate the congressional purpose of protecting the public, we must take
care not to extend the scope of the statute beyond the
point where Congress indicated it would stop.'" United
States v. Article of Drug ... Bacto-Unidisk, 394 U.S.
784, 800, 22 L. Ed. 2d 726, 89 S. Ct. 1410 (1969)
Page 172
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
[***152] (quoting 62 Cases of Jam v. United States,
340 U.S. 593, 600, 95 L. Ed. 566, 71 S. Ct. 515 (1951)).
[**1316] Reading the FDCA as a whole, as well as in
conjunction with Congress' subsequent tobacco-specific
legislation, it is plain that Congress has not given the
FDA the authority that it seeks to exercise here. For these
reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
DISSENT BY: BREYER
DISSENT
JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE SOUTER, and JUSTICE GINSBURG
join, dissenting.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the
authority to regulate "articles (other than food) intended
to affect the structure or any function of the body . . . . "
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21
U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)(C). Unlike the majority, I believe that
tobacco products fit within this statutory language.
[*162] In its own interpretation, the majority nowhere denies the following two salient points. First, tobacco products (including cigarettes) fall within the
scope of this statutory definition, read literally. Cigarettes achieve their mood-stabilizing effects through the
interaction of the chemical nicotine and the cells of the
central nervous system. Both cigarette manufacturers and
smokers alike know of, and desire, that chemically induced result. Hence, cigarettes are "intended to affect"
the body's "structure" and "function," in the literal sense
of these words.
Second, the statute's basic purpose -- the protection
of public health -- supports the inclusion of cigarettes
within its scope. See United States v. Article of Drug ...
Bacto-Unidisk, 394 U.S. 784, 798, 22 L. Ed. 2d 726, 89
S. Ct. 1410 (1969) (FDCA "is to be given a liberal construction consistent with [its] overriding purpose to protect the public health" (emphasis added)). Unregulated
tobacco use causes "more than 400,000 people [to] die
each year from tobacco-related illnesses, such as cancer,
respiratory illnesses, and heart disease." 61 Fed. Reg.
44398 (1996). Indeed, tobacco products kill more people
in this country every year "than . . . AIDS, car accidents,
alcohol, homicides, illegal drugs, suicides, and fires,
combined." Ibid. (emphasis added).
Despite the FDCA's literal language and general
purpose (both of which support the FDA's finding that
cigarettes come within its statutory authority), the majority nonetheless reads the statute as excluding tobacco
products for two basic reasons:
(1) the FDCA does not "fit" the case of tobacco because the statute requires the FDA to prohibit dangerous
drugs or devices (like cigarettes) outright, and the agency
concedes that simply banning the sale of cigarettes is not
a proper remedy, ante, at 19-20; and
(2) Congress has enacted other statutes, which, when
viewed in light of the FDA's long history of denying
[*163] tobacco-related jurisdiction and considered together with Congress' failure explicitly to grant
[***153]
the agency tobacco-specific authority,
demonstrate that Congress did not intend for the FDA to
exercise jurisdiction over tobacco, ante, at 33-34.
In my view, neither of these propositions is valid.
Rather, the FDCA does not significantly limit the FDA's
remedial alternatives. See infra, at 14-21. And the later
statutes do not tell the FDA it cannot exercise jurisdiction, but simply leave FDA jurisdictional law where
Congress found it. See infra, at 21-26; cf. Food and Drug
Administration Modernization Act of 1997, 111 Stat.
2380 (codified at note following 21 U.S.C. § 321 (1994
ed., Supp. III)) (statute "shall" not "be construed to affect
the question of whether" the FDA "has any authority to
regulate any tobacco product").
The bulk of the opinion that follows will explain the
basis for these latter conclusions. In short, I believe that
the most important indicia of statutory meaning -- language and purpose -- along with the FDCA's legislative
history (described [**1317] briefly in Part I) are sufficient to establish that the FDA has authority to regulate
tobacco. The statute-specific arguments against jurisdiction that the tobacco companies and the majority rely
upon (discussed in Part II) are based on erroneous assumptions and, thus, do not defeat the jurisdiction-supporting thrust of the FDCA's language and purpose. The inferences that the majority draws from later
legislative history are not persuasive, since (as I point out
in Part III) one can just as easily infer from the later laws
that Congress did not intend to affect the FDA's tobacco-related authority at all. And the fact that the FDA
changed its mind about the scope of its own jurisdiction
is legally insignificant because (as Part IV establishes)
the agency's reasons for changing course are fully justified. Finally, as I explain in Part V, the degree of accountability that likely will attach to the FDA's action in
this case should alleviate any concern [*164] that
Congress, rather than an administrative agency, ought to
make this important regulatory decision.
I
Before 1938, the federal Pure Food and Drug Act
contained only two jurisdictional definitions of "drug":
"[1] medicines and preparations recognized in the
United States Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary . . .
Page 173
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
and [2] any substance or mixture of substances intended
to be used for the cure, mitigation, or prevention of disease." Act of June 30, 1906, ch. 3915, § 6, 34 Stat. 769.
and Cosmetic Act, 28 Food Drug Cosm. L. J. 177,
178-179 (1973) (emphasis added). This Court, too, has
said that the
In 1938, Congress added a third definition, relevant
here:
"historical expansion of the definition of drug, and
the creation of a parallel concept of devices, clearly show
. . . that Congress fully intended that the Act's coverage
be as broad as its literal language indicates -- and equally
clearly, broader than any strict medical definition might
otherwise allow." Bacto-Unidisk, 394 U.S. at 798.
"(3) articles (other than food) intended to affect the
structure or any function of the body . . . ." Act of June
25, 1938, ch. 675, § 201(g), 52 Stat. 1041 (codified at 21
U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)(C)).
It also added a similar definition in respect to a "device." See § 201(h), 52 Stat. 1041 (codified at 21 U.S.C.
§ 321(h)). As I have mentioned, the literal language of
the third definition and the FDCA's general purpose both
strongly support a projurisdiction reading of the statute.
See supra, at 1-2.
[***154] The statute's history offers further support. The FDA drafted the new language, and it testified
before Congress that the third definition would expand
the FDCA's jurisdictional scope significantly. See Hearings on S. 1944 before a Subcommittee of the Senate
Committee on Commerce, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 15-16
(1933), reprinted in 1 FDA, Legislative History of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and Its Amendments 107-108 (1979) (hereinafter Leg. Hist.). Indeed,
"the purpose" of the new definition was to "make possible the regulation of a great many products that have
been found on the market that cannot be alleged to be
treatments for diseased conditions." Id., at 108. While
the drafters focused specifically upon the need to give
the FDA jurisdiction [*165] over "slenderizing"
products such as "antifat remedies," ibid., they were
aware that, in doing so, they had created what was "admittedly an inclusive, a wide definition." Id., at 107. And
that broad language was included deliberately, so that
jurisdiction could be had over "all substances and preparations, other than food, and all devices intended to affect the structure or any function of the body . . . ." Ibid.
(emphasis added); see also Hearings on S. 2800 before
the Senate Committee on Commerce, 73d Cong., 2d
Sess. 516 (1934), reprinted in 2 Leg. Hist. 519 (statement
of then-FDA Chief Walter Campbell acknowledging that
"this definition of 'drugs' is all-inclusive").
After studying the FDCA's history, experts have
written that the statute "is a purposefully broad delegation of discretionary powers by Congress," J. O'Reilly, 1
Food and Drug Administration § 6.01, p. 6-1 (2d ed.
1995) (hereinafter O'Reilly), and that, in a sense, the
FDCA "must be regarded as a constitution" that "establishes general principles" and "permits implementation
within broad parameters" [**1318] so that the FDA
can "implement these objectives through the most effective and efficient controls that can be devised." Hutt,
Philosophy of Regulation Under the Federal Food, Drug
That Congress would grant the FDA such broad jurisdictional authority should surprise no one. In 1938, the
President and much of Congress believed that federal
administrative agencies needed broad authority and
would exercise that authority wisely -- a view embodied
in much Second New [*166] Deal legislation. Cf.
Gray v. Powell, 314 U.S. 402, 411-412, 86 L. Ed. 301, 62
S. Ct. 326 (1941) (Congress "could have legislated specifically" but decided "to delegate that function to those
whose experience in a particular field gave promise of a
better informed, more equitable" determination). Thus, at
around the same time that it added the relevant language
to the FDCA, Congress enacted laws granting other administrative agencies even broader powers to regulate
much of the Nation's transportation and communication.
See, e.g., Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, ch. 601, §
401(d)(1), 52 Stat. 987 [***155] (Civil Aeronautics
Board to regulate airlines within confines of highly general "public convenience and necessity" standard); Motor
Carrier Act of 1935, ch. 498, § 204(a)(1), 49 Stat. 546
(Interstate Commerce Commission to establish "reasonable requirements" for trucking); Communications Act of
1934, ch. 652, § 201(a), 48 Stat. 1070 (Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate radio, later television, within confines of even broader "public interest"
standard). Why would the 1938 New Deal Congress
suddenly have hesitated to delegate to so well established
an agency as the FDA all of the discretionary authority
that a straightforward reading of the relevant statutory
language implies?
Nor is it surprising that such a statutory delegation
of power could lead after many years to an assertion of
jurisdiction that the 1938 legislators might not have expected. Such a possibility is inherent in the very nature of
a broad delegation. In 1938, it may well have seemed
unlikely that the FDA would ever bring cigarette manufacturers within the FDCA's statutory language by proving that cigarettes produce chemical changes in the body
and that the makers "intended" their product chemically
to affect the body's "structure" or "function." Or, back
then, it may have seemed unlikely that, even assuming
such proof, the FDA actually would exercise its discretion to regulate so popular a product. See R. Kluger,
Ashes to Ashes 105 (1997) (in the 1930's "Americans
were in love with smoking . . . ").
Page 174
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
[*167] But it should not have seemed unlikely
that, assuming the FDA decided to regulate and proved
the particular jurisdictional prerequisites, the courts
would rule such a jurisdictional assertion fully authorized. Cf. United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392
U.S. 157, 172, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1001, 88 S. Ct. 1994 (1968)
(reading Federal Communications Act as authorizing
FCC jurisdiction to regulate cable systems while noting
that "Congress could not in 1934 have foreseen the development of" advanced communications systems). After
all, this Court has read more narrowly phrased statutes to
grant what might have seemed even more unlikely assertions of agency jurisdiction. See, e.g., Permian Basin
Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 774-777, 20 L. Ed. 2d
312, 88 S. Ct. 1344 (1968) (statutory authority to regulate interstate "transportation" of natural gas includes
authority to regulate "prices" charged by field producers); Phillips Petroleum Co. v. [**1319] Wisconsin, 347
U.S. 672, 677-684, 98 L. Ed. 1035, 74 S. Ct. 794 (1954)
(independent gas producer subject to regulation despite
Natural Gas Act's express exemption of gathering and
production facilities).
I shall not pursue these general matters further, for
neither the companies nor the majority denies that the
FDCA's literal language, its general purpose, and its particular legislative history favor the FDA's present jurisdictional view. Rather, they have made several specific
arguments in support of one basic contention: even if the
statutory delegation is broad, it is not broad enough to
include tobacco. I now turn to each of those arguments.
II
A
The tobacco companies contend that the FDCA's
words cannot possibly be read to mean what they literally say. The statute defines "device," for example, as "an
instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance,
implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article . . . intended to affect the structure or any function of
the body . . . ." 21 U.S.C. § 321(h). [*168] Taken literally, this definition might include everything from
room air conditioners to thermal pajamas. The companies argue that, to avoid such a result, the meaning of
"drug" or "device" should be confined to medical or
therapeutic products, [***156] narrowly defined. See
Brief for Respondent United States Tobacco Co. 8-9.
The companies may well be right that the statute
should not be read to cover room air conditioners and
winter underwear. But I do not agree that we must accept
their proposed limitation. For one thing, such a cramped
reading contravenes the established purpose of the statutory language. See Bacto-Unidisk, 394 U.S. at 798 (third
definition is "clearly, broader than any strict medical
definition"); 1 Leg. Hist. 108 (definition covers products
"that cannot be alleged to be treatments for diseased
conditions"). For another, the companies' restriction
would render the other two "drug" definitions superfluous. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 321(g)(1)(A), (g)(1)(B) (covering
articles in the leading pharmacology compendia and
those "intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation,
treatment, or prevention of disease").
Most importantly, the statute's language itself supplies a different, more suitable, limitation: that a "drug"
must be a chemical agent. The FDCA's "device" definition states that an article which affects the structure or
function of the body is a "device" only if it "does not
achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical
action within . . . the body," and "is not dependent upon
being metabolized for the achievement of its primary
intended purposes." § 321(h) (emphasis added). One can
readily infer from this language that at least an article
that does achieve its primary purpose through chemical
action within the body and that is dependent upon being
metabolized is a "drug," provided that it otherwise falls
within the scope of the "drug" definition. And one need
not hypothesize about air conditioners or thermal
[*169] pajamas to recognize that the chemical nicotine,
an important tobacco ingredient, meets this test.
Although I now oversimplify, the FDA has determined that once nicotine enters the body, the blood carries it almost immediately to the brain. See 61 Fed. Reg.
44698-44699 (1966). Nicotine then binds to receptors on
the surface of brain cells, setting off a series of chemical
reactions that alter one's mood and produce feelings of
sedation and stimulation. See id., at 44699, 44739. Nicotine also increases the number of nicotinic receptors on
the brain's surface, and alters its normal electrical activity. See id., at 44739. And nicotine stimulates the transmission of a natural chemical that "rewards" the body
with pleasurable sensations (dopamine), causing nicotine
addiction. See id., at 44700, 44721-44722. The upshot is
that [**1320] nicotine stabilizes mood, suppresses appetite, tranquilizes, and satisfies a physical craving that
nicotine itself has helped to create -- all through chemical
action within the body after being metabolized.
This physiology -- and not simply smoker psychology -- helps to explain why as many as 75% of adult
smokers believe that smoking "reduces nervous irritation," 60 Fed. Reg. 41579 (1995); why 73% of young
people (10- to 22-year-olds) who begin smoking say they
do so for "relaxation," 61 Fed. Reg. 44814 (1996); and
why less than 3% of the 70% of smokers who want to
quit each year succeed, id., at 44704. That chemistry also
helps to explain the Surgeon General's findings that
smokers believe "smoking [makes them] feel better" and
[***157] smoke more "in situations involving negative
mood." Id., at 44814. And, for present purposes, that
chemistry demonstrates that nicotine affects the "struc-
Page 175
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
ture" and "function" of the body in a manner that is quite
similar to the effects of other regulated substances. See
id., at 44667 (FDA regulates Valium, NoDoz,
weight-loss products). Indeed, addiction, sedation, stimulation, and weight loss are precisely the kinds of product effects that the FDA typically reviews and controls.
And, since the nicotine in cigarettes [*170] plainly is
not a "food," its chemical effects suffice to establish that
it is as a "drug" (and the cigarette that delivers it a
drug-delivery "device") for the purpose of the FDCA.
B
The tobacco companies' principal definitional argument focuses upon the statutory word "intended." See 21
U.S.C. § 321 (g)(1)(C). The companies say that "intended" in this context is a term of art. See Brief for Respondent Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. 2. They
assert that the statutory word "intended" means that the
product's maker has made an express claim about the
effect that its product will have on the body. Ibid. Indeed,
according to the companies, the FDA's inability to prove
that cigarette manufacturers make such claims is precisely why that agency historically has said it lacked the
statutory power to regulate tobacco. See id., at 19-20.
The FDCA, however, does not use the word
"claimed"; it uses the word "intended." And the FDA
long ago issued regulations that say the relevant "intent"
can be shown not only by a manufacturer's "expressions," but also "by the circumstances surrounding the
distribution of the article." 41 Fed. Reg. 6896 (1976)
(codified at 21 CFR § 801.4 (1999)); see also 41 Fed.
Reg. 6896 (1976) ("objective intent" shown if "article is,
with the knowledge [of its makers], offered and used" for
a particular purpose). Thus, even in the absence of express claims, the FDA has regulated products that affect
the body if the manufacturer wants, and knows, that
consumers so use the product. See, e.g., 60 Fed. Reg.
41527-41531 (1995) (describing agency's regulation of
topical hormones, sunscreens, fluoride, tanning lamps,
thyroid in food supplements, novelty condoms -- all
marketed without express claims); see also O'Reilly,
Food and Drug Administration § 13.04, at 13-15
("Sometimes the very nature of the material makes it a
drug . . . ").
Courts ordinarily reverse an agency interpretation of
this kind only if Congress has clearly answered the interpretive [*171] question or if the agency's interpretation is unreasonable. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-843,
81 L. Ed. 2d 694, 104 S. Ct. 2778 (1984). The companies, in an effort to argue the former, point to language in
the legislative history tying the word "intended" to a
technical concept called "intended use." But nothing in
Congress' discussion either of "intended" or "intended
use" suggests that an express claim (which often shows
intent) is always necessary. Indeed, the primary statement to which the companies direct our attention says
only that a manufacturer can determine what kind of
regulation applies [**1321] -- "food" or "drug" -- because, "through his representations in connection with its
sale, [the manufacturer] can determine" whether an article is to be used as a [***158] "food," as a "drug," or
as "both." S. Rep. No. 361, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 4
(1935), reprinted in 3 Leg. Hist. 696.
Nor is the FDA's "objective intent" interpretation
unreasonable. It falls well within the established scope of
the ordinary meaning of the word "intended." See Agnew
v. United States, 165 U.S. 36, 53, 41 L. Ed. 624, 17 S. Ct.
235 (1897) (intent encompasses the known consequences
of an act). And the companies acknowledge that the FDA
can regulate a drug-like substance in the ordinary circumstance, i.e., where the manufacturer makes an express claim, so it is not unreasonable to conclude that the
agency retains such power where a product's effects on
the body are so well known (say, like those of aspirin or
calamine lotion), that there is no need for express representations because the product speaks for itself.
The companies also cannot deny that the evidence of
their intent is sufficient to satisfy the statutory word "intended" as the FDA long has interpreted it. In the first
place, there was once a time when they actually did make
express advertising claims regarding tobacco's
mood-stabilizing and weight-reducing properties -- and
historical representations can portend present expectations. In the late 1920's, for example, the American Tobacco Company urged weight-conscious smokers to
"'Reach for a Lucky instead of a [*172] sweet.'"
Kluger, Ashes to Ashes, at 77-78. The advertisements of
R J Reynolds (RJR) emphasized mood stability by depicting a pilot remarking that "'It Takes Steady Nerves
To Fly the Mail At Night . . . . That's why I smoke Camels. And I smoke plenty!'" Id., at 86. RJR also advertised
the stimulating quality of cigarettes, stating in one instance that "'You get a Lift with a Camel,'" and, in another, that Camels are "'A Harmless Restoration of the
Flow of Natural Body Energy.'" Id., at 87. And claims of
medical proof of mildness (and of other beneficial effects) once were commonplace. See, e.g., id., at 93
(Brown & Williamson advertised Kool-brand mentholated cigarettes as "a tonic to hot, tired throats"); id., at
101, 131 (Phillip Morris contended that "recognized laboratory tests have conclusively proven the advantage of
Phillip Morris"); id., at 88 (RJR proclaimed "'For Digestion's sake, smoke Camels! . . . Camels make mealtime
more pleasant -- digestion is stimulated -- alkalinity increased'"). Although in recent decades cigarette manufacturers have stopped making express health claims in
their advertising, consumers have come to understand
Page 176
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
what the companies no longer need to express -- that
through chemical action cigarettes stabilize mood, sedate, stimulate, and help suppress appetite.
Second, even though the companies refused to
acknowledge publicly (until only very recently) that the
nicotine in cigarettes has chemically induced, and habit-forming, effects, see, e.g., Regulation of Tobacco
Products (Part 1): Hearings before the House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, 103d Cong., 2d
Sess., 628 (1994) (hereinafter 1994 Hearings) (heads of
seven major tobacco companies testified under oath that
they believed "nicotine is not addictive" (emphasis added)), the FDA recently has gained access to solid, documentary evidence proving that cigarette manufacturers
have long known tobacco produces these effects within
the body through the metabolizing of chemicals, and that
they [*173] have long wanted their products to produce those effects in this way.
[***159]
For example, in 1972, a tobacco-industry scientist explained that "'smoke is beyond
question the most optimized vehicle of nicotine,'" and
"'the cigarette is the most optimized dispenser of
smoke.'" 61 Fed. Reg. 44856 (1996). That same scientist
urged company executives to
"'think of the cigarette pack as a storage container
for a day's supply of nicotine [**1322] . . . . Think of
the cigarette as a dispenser for a dose unit of nicotine
[and] think of a puff of smoke as a vehicle of nicotine.'"
Ibid. (Philip Morris).
That same year, other tobacco industry researchers
told their superiors that
"'in different situations and at different dose levels,
nicotine appears to act as a stimulant, depressant, tranquilizer, psychic energizer, appetite reducer, anti-fatigue
agent, or energizer . . . . Therefore, [tobacco] products
may, in a sense, compete with a variety of other products
with certain types of drug action.'" Id., at 44669 (RJR).
A draft report prepared by authorities at Philip Morris said that nicotine
"'is a physiologically active, nitrogen containing
substance [similar to] quinine, cocaine, atropine and
morphine. [And] while each of these [other] substances
can be used to affect human physiology, nicotine has a
particularly broad range of influence.'" Id., at
44668-44669.
And a 1980 manufacturer's study stated that
"'the pharmacological response of smokers to nicotine is believed to be responsible for an individual's
smoking [*174] behaviour, providing the motivation
for and the degree of satisfaction required by the smoker.'" Id., at 44936 (Brown & Williamson).
With such evidence, the FDA has more than sufficiently established that the companies "intend" their
products to "affect" the body within the meaning of the
FDCA.
C
The majority nonetheless reaches the "inescapable
conclusion" that the language and structure of the FDCA
as a whole "simply do not fit" the kind of public health
problem that tobacco creates. Ante, at 20. That is because, in the majority's view, the FDCA requires the
FDA to ban outright "dangerous" drugs or devices (such
as cigarettes); yet, the FDA concedes that an immediate
and total cigarette-sale ban is inappropriate. Ibid.
This argument is curious because it leads with similarly "inescapable" force to precisely the opposite conclusion, namely, that the FDA does have jurisdiction but
that it must ban cigarettes. More importantly, the argument fails to take into account the fact that a statute interpreted as requiring the FDA to pick a more dangerous
over a less dangerous remedy would be a perverse statute, causing, rather than preventing, unnecessary harm
whenever a total ban is likely the more dangerous response. And one can at least imagine such circumstances.
Suppose, for example, that a commonly used, mildly
addictive sleeping pill (or, say, a kind of popular contact
lens), plainly within the FDA's jurisdiction, turned out to
pose [***160] serious health risks for certain consumers. Suppose further that many of those addicted
consumers would ignore an immediate total ban, turning
to a potentially more dangerous black-market substitute,
while a less draconian remedy (say, adequate notice)
would wean them gradually away to a safer product.
Would the FDCA still force the FDA to impose [*175]
the more dangerous remedy? For the following reasons, I
think not.
First, the statute's language does not restrict the
FDA's remedial powers in this way. The FDCA permits
the FDA to regulate a "combination product" -- i.e., a
"device" (such as a cigarette) that contains a "drug" (such
as nicotine) -- under its "device" provisions. 21 U.S.C.
§ 353(g)(1). And the FDCA's "device" provisions explicitly grant the FDA wide remedial discretion. For example, where the FDA cannot "otherwise" obtain "reasonable assurance" of a device's "safety and effectiveness,"
the agency may restrict by regulation a product's "sale,
distribution, or use" upon "such . . . conditions as the
Secretary may prescribe. § 360j(e)(1) (emphasis added). And the statutory section that most clearly addresses
the FDA's [**1323] power to ban (entitled "Banned
devices") says that, where a device presents "an unreasonable and substantial risk of illness or injury," the
Secretary "may" -- not must -- "initiate a proceeding . . .
Page 177
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
to make such device a banned device." § 360f(a) (emphasis added).
The Court points to other statutory subsections
which it believes require the FDA to ban a drug or device
entirely, even where an outright ban risks more harm
than other regulatory responses. See ante, at 12-13. But
the cited provisions do no such thing. It is true, as the
majority contends, that "the FDCA requires the FDA to
place all devices" in "one of three classifications" and
that Class III devices require "premarket approval." Ante,
at 12, 13. But it is not the case that the FDA must place
cigarettes in Class III because tobacco itself "presents a
potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury." 21
U.S.C. § 360c(a)(1)(C). In fact, Class III applies only
where regulation cannot otherwise "provide reasonable
assurance of . . . safety." §§ 360c(a)(1)(A), 360c(a)(1)(B)
(placing a device in Class I or Class II when regulation
can provide that assurance). Thus, the statute plainly
allows the FDA to consider the relative, overall "safety"
of [*176] a device in light of its regulatory alternatives, and where the FDA has chosen the least dangerous
path, i.e., the safest path, then it can -- and does -- provide a "reasonable assurance" of "safety" within the
meaning of the statute. A good football helmet provides
a reasonable assurance of safety for the player even if the
sport itself is still dangerous. And the safest regulatory
choice by definition offers a "reasonable" assurance of
safety in a world where the other alternatives are yet
more dangerous.
In any event, it is not entirely clear from the statute's
text that a Class III categorization would require the
FDA affirmatively to withdraw from the market dangerous devices, such as cigarettes, which are already widely
distributed. See, e.g., § 360f(a) (when a device presents
an "unreasonable and substantial risk of illness or injury," the Secretary "may" make it "a banned device"); §
360h(a) (when a device "presents an unreasonable
[***161] risk of substantial harm to the public health,"
the Secretary "may" require "notification"); § 360h(b)
(when a defective device creates an "unreasonable risk"
of harm, the Secretary "may" order "repair, replacement,
or refund"); cf. O'Reilly, Food and Drug Administration
§ 18.08, at 18-38 (point of Class III "premarket approval" is to allow "careful scientific review" of each "truly
new" device "before it is exposed" to users (emphasis
added)).
Noting that the FDCA requires banning a "misbranded" drug, the majority also points to 21 U.S.C. §
352(j), which deems a drug or device "misbranded" if "it
is dangerous to health when used" as "prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling. " See ante, at
12. In addition, the majority mentions § 352(f)(1), which
calls a drug or device "misbranded" unless "its labeling
bears . . . adequate directions for use" as "are necessary
for the protection of users." Ibid. But this "misbranding"
language is not determinative, for it permits the FDA to
conclude that a drug or device is not "dangerous to
health" and that it does have "adequate" [*177] directions when regulated so as to render it as harmless as
possible. And surely the agency can determine that a
substance is comparatively "safe" (not "dangerous")
whenever it would be less dangerous to make the product
available (subject to regulatory requirements) than suddenly to withdraw it from the market. Any other interpretation risks substantial harm of the sort that my
sleeping pill example illustrates. See supra, at 14. And
nothing in the statute prevents the agency from adopting
a view of "safety" that would avoid such harm. Indeed,
the FDA already seems to have taken this position when
permitting distribution of toxic drugs, such as poisons
used for chemotherapy, that are dangerous for the user
but [**1324] are not deemed "dangerous to health" in
the relevant sense. See 61 Fed. Reg. 44413 (1996).
The tobacco companies point to another statutory
provision which says that if a device "would cause serious, adverse health consequences or death, the Secretary
shall issue" a cease distribution order. 21 U.S.C. §
360h(e)(1) (emphasis added). But that word "shall" in
this context cannot mean that the Secretary must resort to
the recall remedy whenever a device would have serious,
adverse health effects. Rather, that language must mean
that the Secretary "shall issue" a cease distribution order
in compliance with the section's procedural requirements
if the Secretary chooses in her discretion to use that particular subsection's recall remedy. Otherwise, the subsection would trump and make meaningless the same section's provision of other lesser remedies such as simple
"notice" (which the Secretary similarly can impose if, but
only if, she finds that the device "presents an unreasonable risk of substantial harm to the public"). § 360h(a)(1).
And reading the statute to compel the FDA to "recall"
every dangerous device likewise would conflict with that
same subsection's statement that the recall remedy "shall
be in addition to [the other] remedies provided" in the
statute. § 360h(e)(3) (emphasis added).
[*178] The statute's language, then, permits the
agency to choose remedies consistent with its basic purpose -- the overall protection of public health.
[***162] The second reason the FDCA does not
require the FDA to select the more dangerous remedy,
see supra, at 14, is that, despite the majority's assertions
to the contrary, the statute does not distinguish among
the kinds of health effects that the agency may take into
account when assessing safety. The Court insists that the
statute only permits the agency to take into account the
health risks and benefits of the "product itself" as used by
individual consumers, ante, at 17, and, thus, that the
FDA is prohibited from considering that a ban on smok-
Page 178
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
ing would lead many smokers to suffer severe withdrawal symptoms or to buy possibly stronger, more dangerous, black market cigarettes -- considerations that the
majority calls "the aggregate health effects of alternative
administrative actions." Ibid. But the FDCA expressly
permits the FDA to take account of comparative safety in
precisely this manner. See, e.g.
, 21 U.S.C. §
360h(e)(2)(B)(i)(II) (no device recall if "risk of recall"
presents "a greater health risk than" no recall); § 360h(a)
(notification "unless" notification "would present a
greater danger" than "no such notification").
Moreover, one cannot distinguish in this context
between a "specific" health risk incurred by an individual
and an "aggregate" risk to a group. All relevant risk is, at
bottom, risk to an individual; all relevant risk attaches to
"the product itself"; and all relevant risk is "aggregate" in
the sense that the agency aggregates health effects in
order to determine risk to the individual consumer. If
unregulated smoking will kill 4 individuals out of a typical group of 1,000 people, if regulated smoking will kill
1 out of 1,000, and if a smoking ban (because of the
black market) will kill 2 out of 1,000; then these three
possibilities means that in each group four, one, and two
individuals, on average, will die respectively. And the
risk to each individual consumer is 4/1000, [*179]
1/1000, and 2/1000 respectively. A "specific" risk to an
individual consumer and "aggregate" risks are two sides
of the same coin; each calls attention to the same set of
facts. While there may be a theoretical distinction between the risk of the product itself and the risk related to
the presence or absence of an intervening voluntary act
(e.g., the search for a replacement on the black market),
the majority does not rely upon any such distinction, and
the FDA's history of regulating "replacement" drugs such
as methadone shows that it has long [**1325] taken
likely actual alternative consumer behavior into account.
I concede that, as a matter of logic, one could consider the FDA's "safety" evaluation to be different from
its choice of remedies. But to read the statute to forbid
the agency from taking account of the realities of consumer behavior either in assessing safety or in choosing a
remedy could increase the risks of harm -- doubling the
risk of death to each "individual user" in my example
above. Why would Congress insist that the FDA ignore
such realities, even if the consequent harm would occur
only unusually, say, where the FDA evaluates a product
(a sleeping pill; a cigarette; a contact lens) that is already
on the market, potentially habit forming, or popular? I
can find no satisfactory answer to this question. And that,
I imagine, is why the statute itself says nothing about any
of the distinctions that the Court has tried to draw. See
21 U.S.C. § 360c(a)(2) [***163] (instructing FDA to
determine the safety and effectiveness of a "device" in
part by weighing "any probable benefit to health . . .
against any probable risk of injury or illness . . . ") (emphasis added).
Third, experience counsels against an overly rigid
interpretation of the FDCA that is divorced from the
statute's overall health-protecting purposes. A different
set of words, added to the FDCA in 1958 by the Delaney
Amendment, provides that "no [food] additive shall be
deemed to be safe if it is found [after appropriate tests] to
induce cancer in man or animal." § 348(c)(3). The FDA
[*180] once interpreted this language as requiring it to
ban any food additive, no matter how small the amount,
that appeared in any food product if that additive was
ever found to induce cancer in any animal, no matter
how large a dose needed to induce the appearance of a
single carcinogenic cell. See H. R. Rep. No. 95-658, p. 7
(1977) (discussing agency's view). The FDA believed
that the statute's ban mandate was absolute and prevented
it from establishing a level of "safe use" or even to judge
whether "the benefits of continued use outweigh the risks
involved." Id., at 5. This interpretation -- which in principle could have required the ban of everything from
herbal teas to mushrooms -- actually led the FDA to ban
saccharine, see 42 Fed. Reg. 19996 (1977), though this
extremely controversial regulatory response never took
effect because Congress enacted, and has continually
renewed, a law postponing the ban. See Saccharin Study
and Labeling Act, Pub. L. 95-203, § 3, 91 Stat. 1452;
e.g., Pub. L. 102-142, Tit. VI, 105 Stat. 910.
The Court's interpretation of the statutory language
before us risks Delaney-type consequences with even
less linguistic reason. Even worse, the view the Court
advances
undermines
the
FDCA's
overall
health-protecting purpose by placing the FDA in the
strange dilemma of either banning completely a potentially dangerous drug or device or doing nothing at all.
Saying that I have misunderstood its conclusion, the majority maintains that the FDA "may clearly regulate
many 'dangerous' products without banning them." Ante,
at 19. But it then adds that the FDA must ban -- rather
than otherwise regulate -- a drug or device that "cannot
be used safely for any therapeutic purpose." Ibid. If I
misunderstand, it is only because this linchpin of the
majority's conclusion remains unexplained. Why must a
widely-used but unsafe device be withdrawn from the
market when that particular remedy threatens the health
of many and is thus more dangerous than another regulatory response? It is, indeed, a perverse interpretation
that reads the FDCA [*181] to require the ban of a
device that has no "safe" therapeutic purpose where a
ban is the most dangerous remedial alternative.
In my view, where linguistically permissible, we
should interpret the FDCA in light of Congress' overall
desire to protect health. That purpose requires a flexible
interpretation that both permits the FDA to take into ac-
Page 179
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
count the realities of human behavior and allows it, in
appropriate [**1326] cases, to choose from its arsenal
of statutory remedies. A statute so interpreted easily
"fits" this, and other, drug- and device-related health
problems.
III
In the majority's view, laws enacted since 1965 require us to deny jurisdiction, whatever the FDCA
[***164] might mean in their absence. But why? Do
those laws contain language barring FDA jurisdiction?
The majority must concede that they do not. Do they
contain provisions that are inconsistent with the FDA's
exercise of jurisdiction? With one exception, see infra, at
24, the majority points to no such provision. Do they
somehow repeal the principles of law (discussed in Part
II, supra) that otherwise would lead to the conclusion
that the FDA has jurisdiction in this area? The companies
themselves deny making any such claim. See Tr. of Oral
Arg. 27 (denying reliance on doctrine of "partial repeal").
Perhaps the later laws "shape" and "focus" what the 1938
Congress meant a generation earlier. Ante, at 20. But this
Court has warned against using the views of a later Congress to construe a statute enacted many years before.
See Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV
Corp., 496 U.S. 633, 650, 110 L. Ed. 2d 579, 110 S. Ct.
2668 (1990) (later history is "'a hazardous basis for inferring the intent of an earlier' Congress" (quoting United
States v. Price, 361 U.S. 304, 313, 4 L. Ed. 2d 334, 80 S.
Ct. 326 (1960))). And, while the majority suggests that
the subsequent history "controls our construction" of the
FDCA, see ante, at 20 (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted), this Court [*182] expressly has held
that such subsequent views are not "controlling." Haynes
v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 87-88, n. 4, 19 L. Ed. 2d
923, 88 S. Ct. 722 (1968); accord, Southwestern Cable
Co., 392 U.S. at 170 (such views have "'very little, if
any, significance'"); see also Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496
U.S. 617, 632, 110 L. Ed. 2d 563, 110 S. Ct. 2658 (1990)
(SCALIA, J., concurring) ("Arguments based on subsequent legislative history . . . should not be taken seriously, not even in a footnote.").
Regardless, the later statutes do not support the
majority's conclusion. That is because, whatever individual Members of Congress after 1964 may have assumed about the FDA's jurisdiction, the laws they enacted did not embody any such "no jurisdiction" assumption. And one cannot automatically infer an antijurisdiction intent, as the majority does, for the later statutes are
both (and similarly) consistent with quite a different
congressional desire, namely, the intent to proceed
without interfering with whatever authority the FDA
otherwise may have possessed. See, e.g., Cigarette Labeling and Advertising -- 1965: Hearings on H. R. 2248
et al. before the House Committee on Interstate and For-
eign Commerce, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 19 (1965) (hereinafter 1965 Hearings) (statement of Rep. Fino that the
proposed legislation would not "erode" agency authority). As I demonstrate below, the subsequent legislative
history is critically ambivalent, for it can be read either
as (a) "ratifying" a no-jurisdiction assumption, see ante,
at 34, or as (b) leaving the jurisdictional question just
where Congress found it. And the fact that both inferences are "equally tenable," Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corp., supra, at 650 (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted); Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara Cty., 480 U.S. 616, 672, 94 L. Ed. 2d 615, 107
S. Ct. 1442 (1987) (SCALIA, J., dissenting), prevents the
majority from drawing from the later statutes the firm,
antijurisdiction implication that it needs.
Consider, for example, Congress' [***165] failure
to provide the FDA with express authority to regulate
tobacco -- a circumstance [*183] that the majority
finds significant. See ante, at 21, 24-25, 32-33. But cf.
Southwestern Cable Co., supra, at 170 (failed requests
do not prove agency "did not already possess" authority).
[**1327] In fact, Congress both failed to grant express
authority to the FDA when the FDA denied it had jurisdiction over tobacco and failed to take that authority
expressly away when the agency later asserted jurisdiction. See, e.g., S. 1262, 104th Cong., 1st Sess., § 906
(1995) (failed bill seeking to amend FDCA to say that
"nothing in this Act or any other Act shall provide the
[FDA] with any authority to regulate in any manner tobacco or tobacco products"); see also H. R. 516, 105th
Cong., 1st Sess., § 2 (1997) (similar); H. R. Res. 980,
reprinted in 142 Cong. Rec. 5018 (1996) (Georgia legislators unsuccessfully requested that Congress "rescind
any action giving the FDA authority" over tobacco); H.
R. 2283, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. (1995) (failed bill "to
prohibit the [FDA] regulation of the sale or use of tobacco"); H. R. 2414, 104th Cong., 1st Sess., § 2(a)
(1995) (similar). Consequently, the defeat of various
different proposed jurisdictional changes proves nothing.
This history shows only that Congress could not muster
the votes necessary either to grant or to deny the FDA
the relevant authority. It neither favors nor disfavors the
majority's position.
The majority also mentions the speed with which
Congress acted to take jurisdiction away from other
agencies once they tried to assert it. See ante, at 22,
26-29. But such a congressional response again proves
nothing. On the one hand, the speedy reply might suggest
that Congress somehow resented agency assertions of
jurisdiction in an area it desired to reserve for itself -- a
consideration that supports the majority. On the other
hand, Congress' quick reaction with respect to other
agencies' regulatory efforts contrasts dramatically with
its failure to enact any responsive law (at any speed) af-
Page 180
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
ter the FDA asserted jurisdiction over tobacco more than
three years ago. And that contrast supports the opposite
conclusion.
[*184] In addition, at least one post-1938 statute
reveals quite a different congressional intent than the
majority infers. See Note following 21 U.S.C. § 321
(1994 ed., Supp. III) (FDA Modernization Act of 1997)
(law "shall [not] be construed to affect the question of
whether the [FDA] has any authority to regulate any tobacco product," and "such authority, if any, shall be exercised under the [FDCA] as in effect on the day before
the date of [this] enactment"). Consequently, it appears
that the only interpretation that can reconcile all of the
subsequent statutes is the inference that Congress did not
intend, either explicitly or implicitly, for its later laws to
answer the question of the scope of the FDA's jurisdictional authority. See 143 Cong. Rec. S8860 (Sept. 5,
1997) (the Modernization Act will "not interfere or substantially negatively affect any of the FDA tobacco authority").
The majority's historical perspective also appears to
be shaped by language in the Federal Cigarette Labeling
and Advertising Act (FCLAA), 79 Stat. 282, 15 U.S.C. §
1331 et seq. See ante, at 25-26. [***166] The FCLAA
requires manufacturers to place on cigarette packages,
etc., health warnings such as the following:
"SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking
Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And
May Complicate Pregnancy." 15 U.S.C. § 1333(a).
The FCLAA has an express pre-emption provision
which says that "no statement relating to smoking and
health, other than the statement required by [this Act],
shall be required on any cigarette package." § 1334(a).
This pre-emption clause plainly prohibits the FDA from
requiring on "any cigarette package" any other "statement relating to smoking and health," but no one contends that the FDA has failed to abide by this prohibition.
See, e.g., 61 Fed. Reg. 44399 (1996) (describing the other regulatory prescriptions). Rather, the question is
whether the FCLAA's pre-emption [*185] provision
does more. Does it forbid the FDA to regulate at all?
[**1328] This Court has already answered that
question expressly and in the negative. See Cipollone v.
Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 120 L. Ed. 2d 407,
112 S. Ct. 2608 (1992). Cipollone held that the FCLAA's
pre-emption provision does not bar state or federal regulation outside the provision's literal scope. Id., at 518.
And it described the pre-emption provision as "merely
prohibiting state and federal rulemaking bodies from
mandating particular cautionary statements on cigarette
labels . . . ." Ibid.
This negative answer is fully consistent with Congress' intentions in regard to the pre-emption language.
When Congress enacted the FCLAA, it focused upon the
regulatory efforts of the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), not the FDA. See 1965 Hearings 1-2. And the
Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969, Pub. L.
91-222, § 7(c), 84 Stat. 89, expressly amended the
FCLAA to provide that "nothing in this Act shall be construed to affirm or deny the [FTC's] holding that it has
the authority to issue trade regulation rules" for tobacco.
See also H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 91-897, p. 7 (1970)
(statement of House Managers) (we have "no intention to
resolve the question as to whether" the FTC could regulate tobacco in a different way); see also 116 Cong. Rec.
7921 (1970) (statement of Rep. Satterfield) (same). Why
would one read the FCLAA's pre-emption clause -- a
provision that Congress intended to limit even in respect
to the agency directly at issue -- so broadly that it would
bar a different agency from engaging in any other cigarette regulation at all? The answer is that the Court need
not, and should not, do so. And, inasmuch as the Court
already has declined to view the FCLAA as pre-empting
the entire field of tobacco regulation, I cannot accept that
that same law bars the FDA's regulatory efforts here.
When the FCLAA's narrow pre-emption provision is
set aside, the majority's conclusion that Congress clearly
intended for its tobacco-related statutes to be the exclusive [*186] "response" to "the problem of tobacco and
health," ante, at 35, is based on legislative silence. Notwithstanding the views voiced by various legislators,
Congress itself has addressed expressly the issue of the
FDA's tobacco-related authority only once -- and, as I
[***167] have said, its statement was that the statute
was not to "be construed to affect the question of whether the [FDA] has any authority to regulate any tobacco
product." Note following 21 U.S.C. § 321 (1994 ed.,
Supp. III). The proper inference to be drawn from all of
the post-1965 statutes, then, is one that interprets Congress' general legislative silence consistently with this
statement.
IV
I now turn to the final historical fact that the majority views as a factor in its interpretation of the subsequent
legislative history: the FDA's former denials of its tobacco-related authority.
Until the early 1990's, the FDA expressly maintained that the 1938 statute did not give it the power that
it now seeks to assert. It then changed its mind. The majority agrees with me that the FDA's change of positions
does not make a significant legal difference. See ante, at
34; see also Chevron, 467 U.S. at 863 ("An initial agency
interpretation is not instantly carved in stone"); accord,
Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N. A., 517 U.S. 735,
Page 181
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
742, 135 L. Ed. 2d 25, 116 S. Ct. 1730 (1996) ("Change
is not invalidating"). Nevertheless, it labels those denials
"important context" for drawing an inference about Congress' intent. Ante, at 34. In my view, the FDA's change
of policy, like the subsequent statutes themselves, does
nothing to advance the majority's position.
When it denied jurisdiction to regulate cigarettes, the
FDA consistently stated why that was so. In 1963, for
example, FDA administrators wrote that cigarettes did
not satisfy the relevant FDCA definitions [**1329] -- in
particular, the "intent" requirement -- because cigarette
makers did not sell their product with accompanying
"therapeutic claims." [*187] Letter to Directors of
Bureaus, Divisions and Directors of Districts from FDA
Bureau of Enforcement (May 24, 1963), in Public Health
Cigarette Amendments of 1971: Hearings on S. 1454
before the Consumer Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., 240 (1972)
(hereinafter FDA Enforcement Letter). And subsequent
FDA Commissioners made roughly the same assertion.
One pointed to the fact that the manufacturers only
"recommended" cigarettes "for smoking pleasure." Two
others reiterated the evidentiary need for "health claims."
Yet another stressed the importance of proving "intent,"
adding that "we have not had sufficient evidence" of "intent with regard to nicotine." See, respectively, id., at
239 (Comm'r Edwards); Letter of Dec. 5, 1977, App. 47
(Comm'r Kennedy); 1965 Hearings 193 (Comm'r Rankin); 1994 Hearings 28 (Comm'r Kessler). Tobacco
company counsel also testified that the FDA lacked jurisdiction because jurisdiction "depends on . . . intended
use," which in turn "depends, in general, on the claims
and representations made by the manufacturer." Health
Consequences of Smoking: Nicotine Addiction, Hearing
before the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment
of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
100th Cong., 2d Sess., 288 (1988) (testimony of Richard
Cooper) (emphasis added).
Other agency statements occasionally referred to
additional problems. Commissioner Kessler, for example, said that the "enormous social consequences" flowing from a decision to regulate tobacco counseled in favor of [***168]
obtaining specific Congressional
"guidance." 1994 Hearings 69; see also ante, at 31
(quoting statement of Health and Human Services Secretary Brandt to the effect that Congress wanted to make
the relevant jurisdictional decision). But a fair reading of
the FDA's denials suggests that the overwhelming problem was one of proving the requisite manufacturer intent.
See Action on Smoking and Health v. Harris, 210 U.S.
App. D.C. 123, 655 F.2d 236, 238-239 (CADC 1980)
(FDA "comments" reveal its "understanding" [*188]
that "the crux of FDA jurisdiction over drugs lay in
manufacturers' representations as revelatory of their intent").
What changed? For one thing, the FDA obtained
evidence sufficient to prove the necessary "intent" despite the absence of specific "claims." See supra, at
12-14. This evidence, which first became available in the
early 1990's, permitted the agency to demonstrate that
the tobacco companies knew nicotine achieved appetite-suppressing, mood-stabilizing, and habituating effects through chemical (not psychological) means, even
at a time when the companies were publicly denying
such knowledge.
Moreover, scientific evidence of adverse health effects mounted, until, in the late 1980's, a consensus on
the seriousness of the matter became firm. That is not to
say that concern about smoking's adverse health effects
is a new phenomenon. See, e.g., Higginson, A New
Counterblast, in Out-door Papers 179, 194 (1863) (characterizing tobacco as "'a narcotic poison of the most active class'"). It is to say, however, that convincing epidemiological evidence began to appear mid-20th century; that the First Surgeon General's Report documenting
the adverse health effects appeared in 1964; and that the
Surgeon General's Report establishing nicotine's addictive effects appeared in 1988. At each stage, the health
conclusions were the subject of controversy, diminishing
somewhat over time, until recently -- and only recently -has it become clear that there is a wide consensus about
the health problem. See 61 Fed. Reg. 44701-44706
(1996).
Finally, administration policy changed. Earlier administrations may have hesitated to assert jurisdiction for
the reasons [**1330] prior Commissioners expressed.
See supra, at 27-28. Commissioners of the current administration simply took a different regulatory attitude.
Nothing in the law prevents the FDA from changing
its policy for such reasons. By the mid-1990's, the evidence [*189] needed to prove objective intent -- even
without an express claim -- had been found. The emerging scientific consensus about tobacco's adverse, chemically induced, health effects may have convinced the
agency that it should spend its resources on this important regulatory effort. As for the change of administrations, I agree with then-JUSTICE REHNQUIST's
statement in a different case, where he wrote:
"The agency's changed view . . . seems to be related
to the election of a new President of a different political
party. It is readily apparent that the responsible members
of one administration may consider public resistance and
uncertainties to be more important than do their counterparts in a previous administration. A change in administration brought about by the people casting their votes
is a perfectly [***169] reasonable basis for an execu-
Page 182
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
tive agency's reappraisal of the costs and benefits of its
programs and regulations. As long as the agency remains
within the bounds established by Congress, it is entitled
to assess administrative records and evaluate priorities in
light of the philosophy of the administration." Motor
Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm
Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 59, 77 L. Ed. 2d
443, 103 S. Ct. 2856 (1983) (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
V
One might nonetheless claim that, even if my interpretation of the FDCA and later statutes gets the words
right, it lacks a sense of their "music." See Helvering v.
Gregory, 69 F.2d 809, 810-811 (CA2 1934) (L. Hand, J.)
("The meaning of a [statute] may be more than that of the
separate words, as a melody is more than the notes . . . ").
Such a claim might rest on either of two grounds.
First, one might claim that, despite the FDA's legal
right to change its mind, its original statements played a
critical part in the enactment of the later statutes and now
should play a critical part in their interpretation. But the
FDA's [*190] traditional view was largely premised
on a perceived inability to prove the necessary statutory
"intent" requirement. See, e.g., FDA Enforcement Letter
240 ("The statutory basis for the exclusion of tobacco
products from FDA's jurisdiction is the fact that tobacco
marketed for chewing or smoking without accompanying
therapeutic claims, does not meet the definitions . . . for
food, drug, device or cosmetic"). The statement, "we
cannot assert jurisdiction over substance X unless it is
treated as a food" would not bar jurisdiction if the agency
later establishes that substance X is, and is intended to
be, eaten. The FDA's denials of tobacco-related authority
sufficiently resemble this kind of statement that they
should not make the critical interpretive difference.
Second, one might claim that courts, when interpreting statutes, should assume in close cases that a decision with "enormous social consequences," 1994 Hearings 69, should be made by democratically elected
Members of Congress rather than by unelected agency
administrators. Cf. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 129, 2
L. Ed. 2d 1204, 78 S. Ct. 1113 (1958) (assuming Congress did not want to delegate the power to make rules
interfering with exercise of basic human liberties). If
there is such a background canon of interpretation, however, I do not believe it controls the outcome here.
Insofar as the decision to regulate tobacco reflects
the policy of an administration, it is a decision for which
that administration, and those politically elected officials
who support it, must (and will) take responsibility. And
the very importance of the decision taken here, as well as
its [**1331] attendant publicity, means that the public
is likely to be aware of it and to hold those officials po-
litically accountable. Presidents, just like Members of
Congress, are elected by the public. Indeed, the President
and Vice President are the only public officials whom the
entire Nation elects. I do not believe that an administrative agency decision of this magnitude -- one that is important, conspicuous, and controversial -- can escape the
kind of public scrutiny that is essential in any democracy. [*191] And such a review will take place whether
it is the Congress or the Executive Branch that makes the
relevant decision.
***
[***170] According to the FDA, only 2.5% of
smokers successfully stop smoking each year, even
though 70% say they want to quit and 34% actually
make an attempt to do so. See 61 Fed. Reg. 44704 (1996)
(citing Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cigarette Smoking Among Adults -- United States, 1993; 43
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 929 (Dec. 23,
1994)). The fact that only a handful of those who try to
quit smoking actually succeed illustrates a certain reality
-- the reality that the nicotine in cigarettes creates a powerful physiological addiction flowing from chemically
induced changes in the brain. The FDA has found that
the makers of cigarettes "intend" these physical effects.
Hence, nicotine is a "drug"; the cigarette that delivers
nicotine to the body is a "device"; and the FDCA's language, read in light of its basic purpose, permits the FDA
to assert the disease-preventing jurisdiction that the
agency now claims.
The majority finds that cigarettes are so dangerous
that the FDCA would require them to be banned (a result
the majority believes Congress would not have desired);
thus, it concludes that the FDA has no tobacco-related
authority. I disagree that the statute would require a cigarette ban. But even if I am wrong about the ban, the
statute would restrict only the agency's choice of remedies, not its jurisdiction.
The majority also believes that subsequently enacted
statutes deprive the FDA of jurisdiction. But the later
laws say next to nothing about the FDA's tobacco-related
authority. Previous FDA disclaimers of jurisdiction may
have helped to form the legislative atmosphere out of
which Congress' own tobacco-specific statutes emerged.
But a legislative atmosphere is not a law, unless it is
embodied in a statutory word or phrase. And the relevant
words and phrases here reveal [*192] nothing more
than an intent not to change the jurisdictional status quo.
The upshot is that the Court today holds that a regulatory statute aimed at unsafe drugs and devices does
not authorize regulation of a drug (nicotine) and a device
(a cigarette) that the Court itself finds unsafe. Far more
than most, this particular drug and device risks the
life-threatening harms that administrative regulation
Page 183
529 U.S. 120, *; 120 S. Ct. 1291, **;
146 L. Ed. 2d 121, ***; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
seeks to rectify. The majority's conclusion is counter-intuitive. And, for the reasons set forth, I believe that
the law does not require it.
Consequently, I dissent.
REFERENCES
25 Am Jur 2d, Drugs and Controlled Substances 2-4, 28,
121, 122; 73 Am Jur 2d, Statutes 178, 204
21 USCS 301 et seq.
L Ed Digest, Drugs, Narcotics, and Poisons 1, 10
L Ed Index, Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; Food and
Drug Administration; Tobacco and Tobacco Products
Annotation References:
Supreme Court's views on weight to be accorded to pronouncements of legislature, or members of legislature,
respecting meaning or intent of previously enacted statute. 56 L Ed 2d 918.
Supreme Court's views as to weight and effect to be
given, on subsequent judicial construction, to prior administrative construction of statute. 39 L Ed 2d 942.
What is "device" within meaning of 201(h) of Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 USCS 321(h)). 129
ALR Fed 343.
What is "drug" within meaning of 201(g)(1) of Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 USCS 321(g)(1)).
127 ALR Fed 141.
102N94
********** Print Completed **********
Time of Request: Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Print Number:
2822:175871801
Number of Lines: 10258
Number of Pages:
Send To:
BRUNNER, GWENDOLYN
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
218 BRUTON GEER
GAINESVILLE, FL 32611
00:37:44 EST
Download
Related flashcards
Family law

31 Cards

Politics

31 Cards

Create flashcards