Warning
Info
Warning
Info
LSD+
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Start your free 14-day trial today. Read as much content as you want during your trial, and you can cancel any time and keep access for the full 14 days.
Supreme Court of the United States - 387 U.S. 136, 18 L. Ed. 2d 681, 87 S. Ct. 1507, SCDB 1966-102, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2974
Contributed by 🤖LSDBot🤖
The case involves drug manufacturers challenging regulations that require them to include the established name of a drug alongside its proprietary name or designation on labels and advertising.
Issue
The issue is whether the regulations requiring drug manufacturers to include the established name of a drug alongside its proprietary name or designation can be challenged and by whom.
Conclusion
The legal conclusion of the Court was that the petitioners had standing as plaintiffs and access to the courts under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act, and that the lower court was wrong in denying them access to the courts. The Court rejected the Government's argument that a pre-enforcement challenge would hinder enforcement of the regulation, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to review the District Court's decision that the regulation exceeded the Commissioner's authority.
LSD+ exclusive
Rule
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Analysis
Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum
Facts
- In this case, prescription drug manufacturers challenged regulations that required them to include the established name of a drug alongside any proprietary name or designation on the label or advertisement.
- The issue was whether the petitioners had standing as plaintiffs and access to the courts under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act.
- The Supreme Court held that the regulations were definitive and subject to review, and that the purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act was to ameliorate the dilemma faced by petitioners.
- The Court rejected the Government's argument that a pre-enforcement challenge would hinder enforcement of the regulation, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to review the District Court's decision that the regulation exceeded the Commissioner's authority.
LSD+ exclusive
Holding
- Hey! This is the holding for Pennoyer v. Neff. It probably isn't the holding for the brief you're looking at. Join LSD+ for full access.
- A named property within the court's jurisdiction is attached to satisfy an unrelated claim, despite the owner of said property being a non-resident of the state.
- A named property within the court's jurisdiction is attached as the basis for the suit (e.g., to quiet title), despite the owner of said property being a non-resident of the state.
- An individual is sued who is a resident of the state, or who has been served with process while physically located within the state.
- jurisdiction - Neff is neither a resident, nor was served while within the state. Service by publication may be valid for an
- proceeding, where the owner would be made aware of the suit due to their property being seized, but not for
- jurisdiction - the action was on the basis of a suit to receive payment owed, and did not relate directly to a property within the state.
- jurisdiction, as the Oregon property was not attached to the initial suit, but rather was added in after the suit happened - note that Neff did not even purchase the property until after the suit had concluded.
- Accordingly, the Oregon court did not have jurisdiction over the initial suit between Neff and his lawyer.
- Enforcement of a judgment without jurisdiction denies due process!
- Additionally, although judgments rendered by other states are entitled to full faith and credit, if that state did not have jurisdiction to render the judgment, it loses such entitlement.
LSD+ exclusive
Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. . Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur
Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, . Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat
Join LSD+
Energize your law school studying with LSD+ for only $19 per month. Join over 40,000 applicants who have used LSD to crush admissions and empower yourself to crush 1L and beyond. With LSD+, you’ll get immediate access to many nice things including:
- Full-access to over 50,000 case briefs
- LSD’s DeepDive tool to read the case at different levels of summarization
- Highlight-to-define to get easy to understand definitions in real time as you study
- Social learning with LSD community case high points
- Instantly brief over 6,000,000 cases with LSD’s cutting edge AI briefing tool
- 14-day free trial