Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
- Decided
- May 22, 1967
- Docket
- 39
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 6,135 timesOverruled on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled on other grounds, abrogated on other grounds, abrogated, overruled in part, disapproved on other grounds, abrogated in part, abrogated in part on other grounds, overruled in part on other grounds (not yet verified) · United States v. State Water Resources Control Board
What later courts said
- holding that action was ripe before prosecution occurred where appellants faced choice between complying with possibly void regulation and risking “serious” civil penalties — Florida League of Professional Lobbyists, Inc. v. William N. Meggs, as State Attorney for the Second Judicial Circuit of Florida (1996)
- holding that a court must “evaluate both the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration” — NEW ENERGY ECONOMY, INC. v. Shoobridge (2010)
- holding that an agency's determination of whether a statute was properly construed was a purely legal issue, and therefore ripe for review — US West Communications v. Arizona Corp. Com'n (1999)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1962 Congress amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (52 Stat. 1040, as amended by the Drug Amendments of 1962, 76 Stat. 780, 21 U. S. C. § 301 et seq.), to require manufacturers of prescription drugs to print the “established name” of the drug “prominently [*138] and in type at least half as large as that used thereon for any proprietary name or designation for such drug,” on labels and other printed material, § 502 (e)(1)(B), 21 U. S. C. § 352 (e)(1)(B). The “established name” is one designated by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare pursuant to § 502(e)(2) of the Act, 21 U. S. C. § 352 (e) (2); the “proprietary name” is usually a trade name under which a particular drug is marketed. The underlying purpose of the 1962 amendment was to bring to the attention of doctors and patients the fact that many of the drugs sold under familiar trade names are actually identical to drugs sold under their “established” or less familiar trade names at significantly lower prices. The Commissioner of Food and Drugs, exercising authority delegated to him by the Secretary, 22 Fed. Reg. 1051, 25 Fed. Reg. 8625, published proposed regulations designed to implement the statute, 28 Fed. Reg. 1448. After inviting and considering comments submitted by interested parties the Commissioner promulgated the following regulation for the “efficient enforcement” of the Act, § 701 (a), 21 U. S. C. § 371 (a):
“If the label or labeling of a prescription drug bears a proprietary name or designation for the drug or any ingredient thereof, the established name, if such there be, corresponding to such proprietary name or designation, shall accompany each appearance of such proprietary name or designation.” 21 CFR §1.104 (g)(1).
Statutes cited
- 21 U.S.C. § 301
- 21 U.S.C. § 352
- 21 U.S.C. § 371
- 5 U.S.C. § 701
- 28 U.S.C. § 2201
- 5 U.S.C. § 702
- 5 U.S.C. § 704
- 21 U.S.C. § 334
- 5 U.S.C. § 551
- 21 U.S.C. § 355
And 8 more sections cited in the full opinion.
Cite this
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.