Report
fda-v-wages-white-lion-us-pet
52 authorities checked
How this report was built
AI inference calls
0
Citations parsed
52
Sources queried
4
Cornell LII, CourtListener, Web search republishers, govinfo
Source texts retrieved
37
Quotes checked
95
65 matched in source text
Verification runs deterministically against authoritative public databases. Your brief is not sent to OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or any other third-party model.
Click any citation below to see how we verified it, the matched source, and a per-quote breakdown.
§Authorities
|
1 Cases: American Manufacturers Mutual Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (1999) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. Sullivan”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
2 Avail Vapor, LLC v. FDA, 55 F.4th 409 (4th Cir. 2022) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Avail Vapor, LLC v. FDA”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
3 Bidi Vapor LLC v. FDA, 47 F.4th 1191 (11th Cir. 2022) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The brief's reporter triple is independently confirmed by leagle.com's volume index, and CourtListener's docket index identifies the same case.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View opinion on GovInfo →
4 Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Bowles, Price Administrator, v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
5 Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (1962) flagged
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
3 of 5 located
Why we flagged this
- At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“has not considered all relevant factors”
Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.
“counsel's post hoc rationalizations.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“the agency alone”
Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.
“counsel's discretion for that of the [agency].”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“counsel's post hoc rationalizations.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
6 Calcutt v. FDIC, 598 U.S. 623 (2023) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 6 of 6 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Calcutt v. FDIC”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.
“conduct a de novo inquiry into the matter being reviewed”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.
“reach its own conclusions based on such an inquiry.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.
“conduct a de novo inquiry”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.
“reach its own conclusions based on such an inquiry.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.
“uncertainty as to the outcome”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.
7 Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 3 of 3 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Cheek v. United States”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“general rule”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“a mistake of law is no defense.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“a good-faith misunderstanding of the law.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
8 Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 4 of 4 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Christopher v. Smithkline Beecham Corp”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“impose potentially massive liability”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“conduct that occurred well before that interpretation was announced.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“new liability”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.
“past actions which were taken in good-faith reliance on agency pronouncements.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.
9 Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 2 of 2 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Chrysler Corp. v. Brown”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“advise the public of the agency's construction of the statutes and rules which it administers,”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citations omitted)”.
“advise the public prospectively of the manner in which the agency proposes to exercise a discretionary power.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citations omitted)”.
10 Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Cutter v. Wilkinson”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“a court of review, not of first view,”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
11 DHS v. MacLean, 574 U.S. 383 (2015) brief quality retrieval gap
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· opinion text unavailable
Brief-quality observations
- A case named 'Department of Homeland Security v. Robert J. MacLean' exists in CourtListener at [{'volume': '135', 'reporter': 'S. Ct.', 'page': '913'}, {'volume': '190', 'reporter': 'L. Ed. 2d', 'page': '771'}, {'volume': '2015', 'reporter': 'U.S. LEXIS', 'page': '755'}, {'volume': '25', 'reporter': 'Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S', 'page': '58'}, {'volume': '39', 'reporter': 'I.E.R. Cas. (BNA)', 'page': '945'}, {'volume': '83', 'reporter': 'U.S.L.W.', 'page': '4075'}] (scotus, 2015), but the brief's citation does not match.
How we matched this
The brief's reporter triple is independently confirmed by leagle.com's volume index, and CourtListener's docket index identifies the same case.
Why we couldn't check the quotes
We couldn't retrieve any opinion text for this citation from our public sources. The case may only be available on a paid service like Westlaw or Lexis. Without the text, we can't check whether the brief's quotes appear in the opinion.
Quotes attributed to this authority
These quotes have not been verified because the opinion text wasn't available.
new tobacco product[s],
Not verified: opinion text unavailable.
That is significant because Congress generally acts intentionally when it uses particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another.
Not verified: opinion text unavailable.
12 Cases-Continued: Page Department of Commerce v. New York, 588 U.S. 752 (2019) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 2 of 2 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Department of Commerce v. New York”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“improperly substituted its judgment for that of the agency,”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.
13 Electric Clouds, Inc. v. FDA, 94 F.4th 950 (10th Cir. 2024) flagged
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
3 of 4 located
Why we flagged this
- At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Electric Clouds v. FDA”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“novel marketing and sales-access restrictions”
This quote does not appear in the cited opinion's text, but may be a canonical restatement of the opinion — the language appears in another opinion this brief cites.
“[The remand rule] doesn't apply here because we're basing harmlessness on the FDA's existing approach to marketing restrictions, not a reason that we've detected on our own.”
The brief's quote matches 100% of the cited opinion, but in separate passages — not as one continuous quote. This typically means the brief either paraphrased inside the quotation marks (Bluebook Rule 5.2 requires brackets for any substitution) or silently omitted intervening text (Bluebook Rule 5.3 requires “. . .” for omissions). Compare the brief's quotation against the cited opinion.
What diverges
brief: …asing harmlessness on the fdas existing approach to marketin…
opinion: …asing harmlessness on the fdas appellate case: 21-9577 document: 010111006058 date filed: 02/27/2024 page: 36 existing approach to marketin…
“Ice Cream Dream”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(emphasis omitted)”.
“Candy Man”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(emphasis omitted)”.
14 FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 4 of 4 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“reasoned explanation for its action.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“display awareness that it is changing position,”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(emphasis omitted)”.
“show that there are good reasons for the new policy,”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(emphasis omitted)”.
“serious reliance interests”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(emphasis omitted)”.
15 FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project, 592 U.S. 414 (2021) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 4 of 4 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“reasonable and reasonably explained.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“acted within a zone of reasonableness”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“reasonably explained the decision.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“zone of reasonableness.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
16 General Electric Co. v. EPA, 53 F.3d 1324 (D.C. Cir. 1995) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “General Electric Company v. United States Environmental Protection Agency”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
17 Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Grayned v. City of Rockford”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“meticulous specificity”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.
18 Gripum LLC v. FDA, 47 F.4th 553 (7th Cir. 2022) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 2 of 2 located
How we matched this
The brief's reporter triple is independently confirmed by leagle.com's volume index, and CourtListener's docket index identifies the same case. Matched docket: “GRIPUM LLC v. FDA”.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View case page on GovInfo →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“a careful, individualized review”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“candy, fruit, or baked goods”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
19 Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Johnson v. United States”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
20 Kisor v. Wilkie, 588 U.S. 558 (2019) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Kisor v. Wilkie”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
21 Liquid Labs LLC v. FDA, 52 F.4th 533 (3rd Cir. 2022) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 3 of 3 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Liquid Labs LLC v. FDA”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“conflate[d] 'long-term' studies with studies examining behavior 'over time.' ”
Found, treating [bracketed] text in the quote as flexible.
“over time”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“shorter than six months.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
22 Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter & Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. 657 (2020) brief quality flagged
Case exists as cited?
Not verified
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
Brief-quality observations
- A case named 'Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania' exists in CourtListener at 140 S. Ct. 2367, 207 L. Ed. 2d 819 (scotus, 2020). The brief cites it as 591 U.S. 657 — the brief's citation does not match the real instrument.
23 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024) brief quality flagged
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
3 of 5 located
Brief-quality observations
- A case named 'Loper Bright Enterprises, et al., Petitioners v. Gina Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al.' exists in CourtListener at [{'volume': '603', 'reporter': 'U.S.', 'page': '369'}] (scotus, 2024), but the brief's citation does not match.
Why we flagged this
- At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.
How we matched this
The brief's reporter triple is independently confirmed by leagle.com's volume index, and CourtListener's docket index identifies the same case.
Quotes attributed to this authority
“appropriate for the protection of the public health,”
Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.
“flexibility,”
Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.
“determine the best reading”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“by applying their own judgment.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“the limits of human language and foresight,”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
24 Lotus Vaping Technologies, LLC v. FDA, 73 F.4th 657 (9th Cir. 2023) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The brief's reporter triple is independently confirmed by leagle.com's volume index, and CourtListener's docket index identifies the same case.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View opinion on GovInfo →
25 Magellan Technology, Inc. v. FDA, 70 F.4th 622 (2d Cir. 2023) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Magellan Technology, Inc. v. United States Food and Drug Administration”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
26 Page Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Utility Dist. No. 1, 554 U.S. 527 (2008) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 2 of 2 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish Cty”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“convert judicial review of agency action into a ping-pong game.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.
“To remand would be an idle and useless formality.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.
27 NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267 (1974) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “National Labor Relations Board v. Bell Aerospace Co”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“case-by-case evolution”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
28 Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 2 of 2 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Neder v. United States”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“the judgment would have been the same”
This quote does not appear in the cited opinion's text, but may be a canonical restatement of the opinion — the language appears in another opinion this brief cites.
“whether the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
29 Ohio v. EPA, 144 S. Ct. 2040 (2024) brief quality flagged
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
Brief-quality observations
- A case named 'Ohio, et al., Applicants v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.' exists in CourtListener at [{'volume': '603', 'reporter': 'U.S.', 'page': '279'}] (scotus, 2024), but the brief's citation does not match.
How we matched this
The brief's reporter triple is independently confirmed by leagle.com's volume index, and CourtListener's docket index identifies the same case.
30 Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92 (2015) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
31 Prohibition Juice Co. v. FDA, 45 F.4th 8 (D.C. Cir. 2022) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 8 of 8 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Prohibition Juice Co. v. FDA”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“serious arguments”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“assum[ing] the contents of plans without reading them.”
Found, treating [bracketed] text in the quote as flexible.
“The measures they highlight[ed] in their marketing plans [we]re not materially different from those the FDA had previously found insufficient.”
Found, treating [bracketed] text in the quote as flexible.
“to require customers' self-verification of age at the point of sale”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“track[ed] measures the FDA in its 2020 guidance deemed inadequate to prevent or otherwise materially limit youth access.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“identify how the FDA's denial orders could have come out differently if only it had known the contents of their plans.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“Blueberry Dream Cake”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“Sugar Rush Peach Ring Candy”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
32 SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 2 of 2 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“a judicial judgment”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“be made to do service for an administrative judgment.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
33 SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (1947) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 3 of 3 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“prospectively.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“by individual order”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“by general rule,”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
34 Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396 (2009) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 4 of 4 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs v. Sanders”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“[T]he burden of showing that an error is harmful normally falls upon the party attacking the agency's determination.”
Found — minor punctuation or spacing differences.
“ 'the rule of prejudicial error,' ”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“the same kind of 'harmless-error' rule that courts ordinarily apply in civil cases,”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“an estimation of the likelihood that the result would have been different”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
35 United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81 (1921) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“ascertainable standard of guilt.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
36 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, Inc., 435 U.S. 519 (1978) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“the maximum procedural requirements which Congress was willing to have the courts impose upon agencies.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
37 Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U.S. 86 (1909) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas (No. 1)”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
38 90 F.4th 357 flagged
Case exists as cited?
Not verified
Opinion text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
Why we flagged this
- We couldn't independently verify this citation against our public sources.
39 41 F.4th 427 brief quality flagged
Case exists as cited?
Not verified
Opinion text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
Brief-quality observations
- Case name in the brief differs materially from the official record.
40 16 F.4th 1130 brief quality flagged
Case exists as cited?
Not verified
Opinion text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
Brief-quality observations
- Case name in the brief differs materially from the official record.
41 81 Fed. Reg. at 29,004-29,008 flagged
Case exists as cited?
Not verified
Opinion text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
Why we flagged this
- No matching case-law record found via CourtListener (citation lookup, docket lookup, name search), court-specific adapters, govinfo, or web search. The citation triple did not appear in any of our case-law databases.
42 556 U.S. at 515 flagged
Case exists as cited?
Not verified
Opinion text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· opinion text unavailable
Why we flagged this
- No matching case-law record found via CourtListener (citation lookup, docket lookup, name search), court-specific adapters, govinfo, or web search. The citation triple did not appear in any of our case-law databases.
- We couldn't retrieve the source text from any of our public sources.
Why we couldn't check the quotes
We couldn't retrieve any opinion text for this citation from our public sources. The case may only be available on a paid service like Westlaw or Lexis. Without the text, we can't check whether the brief's quotes appear in the opinion.
Quotes attributed to this authority
These quotes have not been verified because the opinion text wasn't available.
serious reliance interests
Not verified: opinion text unavailable.
43 Pub. L. No. 111-31 clean
Citation exists?
Pass
· medium confidence
Source text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in source?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
Resolved as a non-case authority (statute, rule, or regulation).
View matched page on GovInfo →
44 123 Stat. 1776 manual verify
Citation exists?
Not verified
Source text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in source?
N/A
· no quotes to check
Please verify this one manually
This citation falls outside our automated coverage. Law reviews, treatises, restatements, and legislative packages predating govinfo's collection window don't have a free full-text source we can reliably retrieve. The citation itself looks well-formed; a reviewer with access to HeinOnline, Westlaw, Lexis, or a law library can confirm. This isn't a defect in the citation; it's a coverage gap in our automated sources.
45 123 Stat. 1777 manual verify
Citation exists?
Not verified
Source text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in source?
N/A
· source text unavailable
Please verify this one manually
This citation falls outside our automated coverage. Law reviews, treatises, restatements, and legislative packages predating govinfo's collection window don't have a free full-text source we can reliably retrieve. The citation itself looks well-formed; a reviewer with access to HeinOnline, Westlaw, Lexis, or a law library can confirm. This isn't a defect in the citation; it's a coverage gap in our automated sources.
Quotes attributed to this authority
These quotes have not been verified because the source text wasn't retrieved.
use of tobacco products by the Nation's children is a pediatric disease of considerable proportions.
Not verified: source text unavailable.
[v]irtually all new users of tobacco products are under the minimum legal age to purchase such products,
Not verified: source text unavailable.
become addicted to the nicotine in those products before reaching the age of 18,
Not verified: source text unavailable.
[t]obacco advertising and marketing contribute significantly to the use of nicotine-containing tobacco products by adolescents.
Not verified: source text unavailable.
past efforts to restrict advertising and marketing of tobacco products
Not verified: source text unavailable.
failed adequately to curb tobacco use by adolescents.
Not verified: source text unavailable.
[p]ast efforts
Not verified: source text unavailable.
not been successful
Not verified: source text unavailable.
increased use of such products by youth.
Not verified: source text unavailable.
46 123 Stat. 1778 manual verify
Citation exists?
Not verified
Source text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in source?
N/A
· source text unavailable
Please verify this one manually
This citation falls outside our automated coverage. Law reviews, treatises, restatements, and legislative packages predating govinfo's collection window don't have a free full-text source we can reliably retrieve. The citation itself looks well-formed; a reviewer with access to HeinOnline, Westlaw, Lexis, or a law library can confirm. This isn't a defect in the citation; it's a coverage gap in our automated sources.
Quotes attributed to this authority
These quotes have not been verified because the source text wasn't retrieved.
past efforts
Not verified: source text unavailable.
curb[ed] tobacco use by adolescents,
Not verified: source text unavailable.
young people
Not verified: source text unavailable.
dramatically increased their advertising and promotional spending in ways that encourage[d]youth to start smoking,
Not verified: source text unavailable.
issues of particular concern to public health officials, especially the use of tobacco by young people and dependence on tobacco,
Not verified: source text unavailable.
the public health crisis created by actions of the tobacco industry.
Not verified: source text unavailable.
valid scientific evidence
Not verified: source text unavailable.
is sufficient to evaluate
Not verified: source text unavailable.
valid scientific evidence
Not verified: source text unavailable.
[r]estrictions on advertising are necessary to prevent unrestricted tobacco advertising from undermining legislation prohibiting access to young people.
Not verified: source text unavailable.
47 123 Stat. 1779 manual verify
Citation exists?
Not verified
Source text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in source?
N/A
· no quotes to check
Please verify this one manually
This citation falls outside our automated coverage. Law reviews, treatises, restatements, and legislative packages predating govinfo's collection window don't have a free full-text source we can reliably retrieve. The citation itself looks well-formed; a reviewer with access to HeinOnline, Westlaw, Lexis, or a law library can confirm. This isn't a defect in the citation; it's a coverage gap in our automated sources.
48 123 Stat. 1781 manual verify
Citation exists?
Not verified
Source text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in source?
N/A
· source text unavailable
Please verify this one manually
This citation falls outside our automated coverage. Law reviews, treatises, restatements, and legislative packages predating govinfo's collection window don't have a free full-text source we can reliably retrieve. The citation itself looks well-formed; a reviewer with access to HeinOnline, Westlaw, Lexis, or a law library can confirm. This isn't a defect in the citation; it's a coverage gap in our automated sources.
Quotes attributed to this authority
These quotes have not been verified because the source text wasn't retrieved.
the primary Federal regulatory authority with respect to the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products.
Not verified: source text unavailable.
49 81 Fed. Reg. 28,974 manual verify
Citation exists?
Not verified
Source text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in source?
N/A
· no quotes to check
Please verify this one manually
This citation falls outside our automated coverage. Law reviews, treatises, restatements, and legislative packages predating govinfo's collection window don't have a free full-text source we can reliably retrieve. The citation itself looks well-formed; a reviewer with access to HeinOnline, Westlaw, Lexis, or a law library can confirm. This isn't a defect in the citation; it's a coverage gap in our automated sources.
50 84 Fed. Reg. 50,566 manual verify
Citation exists?
Not verified
Source text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in source?
N/A
· no quotes to check
Please verify this one manually
This citation falls outside our automated coverage. Law reviews, treatises, restatements, and legislative packages predating govinfo's collection window don't have a free full-text source we can reliably retrieve. The citation itself looks well-formed; a reviewer with access to HeinOnline, Westlaw, Lexis, or a law library can confirm. This isn't a defect in the citation; it's a coverage gap in our automated sources.
51 1969 Duke L.J. 199 manual verify
Citation exists?
Not verified
Source text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in source?
N/A
· source text unavailable
Please verify this one manually
This citation falls outside our automated coverage. Law reviews, treatises, restatements, and legislative packages predating govinfo's collection window don't have a free full-text source we can reliably retrieve. The citation itself looks well-formed; a reviewer with access to HeinOnline, Westlaw, Lexis, or a law library can confirm. This isn't a defect in the citation; it's a coverage gap in our automated sources.
Quotes attributed to this authority
These quotes have not been verified because the source text wasn't retrieved.
an improper judicial invasion of the administrative province,
Not verified: source text unavailable.
but for the error.
Not verified: source text unavailable.
91 U.S. Const. Amend. V clean
Citation exists?
Pass
· high confidence
Source text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in source?
N/A
How we matched this
Constitutional citation.
View text on Cornell Law (LII) →
§Record & filing references (116)
Citations to filings in this case or its record — appendices, docket entries, pleadings. These aren't published authority, so we don't retrieve or verify them. They're listed here so every citation in the brief is accounted for.
Pet. App. 301a-304a
appendix
not verified
https://www.fda.gov/
web source
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- interest in tobacco flavor is low among youth.
- complete switching
- established cigarette smokers,
- as a way to reduce or stop smoking
- flavor of interest.
- known and substantial risk to youth,
- sufficiently reliable and robust evidence
Pet. App. 51a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- turned around and denied [respondents'] applications
- categorical ban
- surprise switcheroo.
- over one million
J.A. 319, 409
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- appeal to adults as well.
- growing body of scientific evidence
- flavors are crucial to getting adult smokers to make the switch and stay away from combustible cigarettes.
- a number of surveys
- minors are increasingly using flavored [e-cigarettes].
- flavors are crucial to getting adult smokers to make the switch and stay away from combustible cigarettes.
J.A. 475
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- observational cohort studies had mixed results
- cross-sectional studies that addressed flavor did not do so in a manner t[hat] directly answer[ed] this secondary research question.
- can aid in smoking cessation,
- State of the Science
- there is not enough evidence from well-designed studies to determine whether e-cigarette flavors aid in smoking cessation.
Pet. App. 200a, 254a, 308a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- the most widely used tobacco product among youth by far.
- because they come in flavors I like.
- more palatable for novice youth and young adults, which can lead to initiation, more frequent and repeated use, and eventually established regular use.
- known and substantial risk to youth.
Pet. App. 191a, 245a, 299a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- the removal of one flavored product option prompted youth to migrate to another [product] type that offered the desired flavor options,
- the fundamental role of flavor in driving appeal.
- variability in the popularity of [e-cigarette] device types among youth,
- consisten[cy]
- the role of flavor.
Pet. App. 167a, 227a, 263a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- did not find such evidence
- the same degree of risk of youth uptake.
- the literature does not establish that flavors differentially promote switching amongst [e-cigarette] users in general.
- [F]or the sake of efficiency,
- known risks to youth,
- robust and reliable evidence
Pet. App. 200a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- not aware of access restrictions that, to date, have been successful in sufficiently decreasing the ability of youth to obtain and use
- theoretically possible that significant mitigation efforts could adequately reduce youth access and appeal such that the risk for youth initiation would be reduced.
Pet. App. 144a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 99a-143a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 334a-335a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 21a-26a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- FDA did in fact look at 'summaries' of [respondent's] marketing plans.
- harmless-error rule simply does not apply
- discretionary administrative decisions
Pet. App. 46a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- categorical ban
- de facto ban
- material distinction
- material distinction
- changed its position
Pet. App. 62a-93a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 35a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- This evidence could have been provided using a randomized controlled trial and/or longitudinal cohort study[.] * * * Alternatively, FDA would consider other evidence[.] * * * We did not find such evidence in your [application].
- randomized controlled trials and longitudinal cohort studies.
J.A. 98
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- in some cases, it may be possible to support a marketing order
- without conducting new * * * studies.
- if there is an established body of evidence regarding the health impact
- published literature,
- may be sufficient to support
- literature reviews
- are considered a less robust form of support,
- studies may be necessary.
Pet. App. 113a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 201a-202a, 255a-256a, 309a-310a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- [T]he evidence regarding the role of flavors in promoting switching among adult smokers is far from conclusive. In fact, the findings are quite mixed and as a result the literature does not establish that flavors differentially promote switching amongst [e-cigarette] users in general.
Pet. App. 32a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- randomized controlled trial
- longitudinal cohort study
Pet. App. 82a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- known risks
- robust and reliable evidence [wa]s needed regarding the magnitude of the potential benefit to adult smokers.
- This evidence could have been provided using a randomized controlled trial and/or longitudinal cohort study[.]
- would consider other evidence
- reliably and robustly evaluated the impact
- did not find such evidence
- even a cursory read
Pet. App. 168a, 228a, 280a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- over time.
Pet. App. 39a-40a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- flavored product[s]
- unflavored products
- bridging
Pet. App. 199a, 253a, 307a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- other flavors * * * in the same flavor category (e.g., 'fruit').
- draw inferences about flavored products
- scientific studies involving unflavored products.
- the impact of the new flavored [products].
- bridg[e]from studies based on comparable products.
- one of [its] flavors
Pet. App. 26a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- specify the * * * scientific goal line
- literature reviews involving non-flavored products
- the public health benefits of flavored e-cigarettes,
- fair notice
- fair notice
Pet. App. 49a-51a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- not only must its understanding of the [guidance] be reasonable, but the manufacturers' understanding of those rules also must be unreasonable.
- could be reasonably read
- certainly could be read in good faith the way
- decide all relevant questions of law
- [F]or FDA to prevail,
Pet. App. 22a-23a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- marketing plans were 'critical' to the success of e-cigarette applications.
Pet. App. at 71a-227a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- [r]estrictions on advertising and promotion,
- not advertising on billboards located within 500 feet of any elementary or secondary schools.
- [b]ecause these restrictions are intended to curb youth appeal but do not directly prevent youth use, they do not in themselves provide enough assurance of a sufficient reduction in youth use to mitigate the substantial risk that flavored [e-cigarette products] pose to youth.
Logic Pet. App. at 139a-140a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- these restrictions do not by themselves mitigate the high risk to youth posed by flavored [e-cigarettes] to a degree material enough to establish that a product is [appropriate for the protection of public health] in the absence of robust and reliable evidence of benefit to adults.
- This is because youth have been able to obtain products, including flavored [products], despite sales restrictions.
- [r]estrictions on sales access,
- requiring ageand identity-verification prior to selling products
Pet. App. 200a-201a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 124a-125a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- called for their products to be sold only in age-gated vape and specialty tobacco shops and through age-gated online sales.
- But FDA has already explained that such attempts do not work.
- [N]othing in [respondents'] briefing to [the Fifth Circuit] indicate[d]that their marketing plan was in fact unique.
Pet. App. 57a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- APA errors are only harmless where the agency would be required to take the same action no matter what. In all other cases, an agency cannot avoid remand.
- [i]n administrative law, the harmless error rule is quite narrow.
- narrow
- [i]n administrative law,
Pet. App. 58a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- did not matter
- would not affect the agency's decisionmaking.
- cannot forgive procedural violations simply because the court thinks they did not matter
- look past the error on the supposition that the error would not affect the agency's decisionmaking.
Pet. App. 192a, 246a, 300a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- the preference for device types and popularity of certain styles is likely fluid,
- shift[ed]
- a ten-fold increase
- disposable flavored [e-cigarettes].
- the removal of one flavored product option prompted youth to migrate to another [device] type that offered the desired flavor options, underscoring the fundamental role of flavor in driving appeal.
- the removal of one flavored product option prompted youth to migrate to another [product] type that offered the desired flavor options,
- the fundamental role of flavor in driving appeal.
- which were most appealing to youth at the time.
Pet. App. 47a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- categorical ban
- de facto ban on flavored e-cigarettes
- across-the-board ban on all flavored products.
- pretended otherwise,
- de facto ban on flavored e-cigarettes.
- de facto ban.
- across-the-board ban on all flavored products.
Pet. App. 193a-196a, 247a-250a, 301a-304a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- as the known risks increase, so too does the burden of demonstrating a substantial enough benefit.
- In order for marketing of a new flavored [e-cigarette] product to be found [appropriate for the protection of the public health], an applicant would have to show that the significant risk to youth could be overcome by likely benefits substantial enough such that the net impact to public health would be positive[.]
- insufficient to demonstrate that these products would provide an added benefit that is adequate to outweigh the risks to youth.
- across-the-board ban.
Pet. App. 24a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- to explain why * * * it approved menthol products
- how [FDA] could rationally approve menthol products while denying [respondents'] flavored products.
- FDA ha[d] approved menthol-flavored e-cigarette products notwithstanding its ban on 'flavored' products.
Doc. 362, at 6
docket filing
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- FDA ha[d]not approved any [applications] for menthol-flavored [e-cigarette] products
Pet. App. 332a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- [a]vailable data
- few non-tobacco users,
- including youth,
- would be likely to choose to start using
- approach to the [appropriate for the protection of the public health] analysis for mentholflavored
- [y]outh use of menthol [products] is greater than tobacco flavor, but lower than other flavors such as candy, desserts, and sweets.
- the effectiveness of a product in promoting switching among smokers arises from a combination of its product features,
- [i]n April 2019, FDA authorized the marketing of a menthol-flavored IQOS heat-not-burn cigarette product.
- used the term 'e-cigarette products' as a catch-all term to refer to a wide array of products,
https://digitalmedia.hhs.gov/tobacco/hosted/
web source
not verified
https://www.fda.gov/media/
web source
not verified
https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/
web source
not verified
https://perma.cc/BV8D-HR7H
web source
not verified
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/pressannouncements/fda-authorizes-marketingfour-menthol-flavored-e-cigarette-productsafter-extensive-scientific
web source
not verified
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/
web source
not verified
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/pressannouncements/fda-permits-sale-iqostobacco-heating-system-through-premarkettobacco-product-application-pathway
web source
not verified
https://perma.cc/7PZR-EEFS
web source
not verified
https://perma.cc/CY75-6AVD
web source
not verified
Pet. App. 1a-98a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 144a-165a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 166a-330a
appendix
not verified
J.A. 10-11
appendix
not verified
J.A. 1-109
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 129a
appendix
not verified
https://digitalmedia.hhs.gov/tobacco/
web source
not verified
Pet. App. 305a
appendix
not verified
J.A. 283-376, 377-476
appendix
not verified
J.A. 492, 519, 606, 608
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- Pink Lemonade,
- Rainbow Road,
- Chewy Clouds Sour Grape,
- Jimmy The Juice Man Peachy Strawberry.
- Cloud Science Alpha,
J.A. 502, 504
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- [s]imilar to cotton candy,
- Cloud Science Epsilon,
- delivers the memorable taste of your favorite little rainbow fruit candies.
J.A. 518, 546, 593, 612
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- Crème Brulee,
- Killer Kustard,
- Strawberry Parfait,
- Suicide Bunny Mother's Milk and Cookies.
J.A. 303
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- in a Coalition with other, similarly situated e-liquid companies
J.A. 325, 375
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- important insight into the impact of [flavored e-liquids] on public health.
J.A. 476
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- no conclusions can be made about the association of e-cigarettes flavors and smoking cessation as there have not been enough studies investigating this research question.
- no conclusions can be made about the association of e-cigarettes flavors and smoking cessation.
Pet. App. 166a-176a, 226a-230a, 278a-284a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 201a
appendix
not verified
J.A. 215-228
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 166a-167a, 226a-227a, 279a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 331a-333a
appendix
not verified
J.A. 215
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- would not be sufficient to address youth use of these products.
- how the product was sold
- enforcement priorities for flavored [e-cigarette] products.
- [F]ocusing on how the product was sold would not be sufficient.
Pet. App. 64a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- Suicide Bunny Mother's Milk and Cookies,
- Jimmy The Juice Man Peachy Strawberry,
- seem designed to have appeal for kids.
Pet. App. 26a-51a
appendix
not verified
J.A. 97
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- the types of information an applicant should include
- Ideally,
J.A. 104
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- will include studies conducted using the new tobacco product.
- [i]deally
- studies conducted using the new tobacco product,
- bridging of data from one product to another may be feasible
J.A. 100, 102
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- additional information
- to strengthen the likelihood
J.A. 319
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- adult smokers to make the switch and stay away from [conventional] cigarettes.
J.A. 303, 392
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- comprehensive review of the scientific literature,
J.A. 100
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- considered a less robust form of support,
J.A. 28
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- in general, FDA does not expect that applicants will need to conduct long-term studies to support an application.
Pet. App. 7a, 32a-35a
appendix
not verified
J.A. 29
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- studies that are conducted over six months or longer.
- long-term health impacts.
- [I]nstead of conducting [new] clinical studies that span months or years,
- applicants could demonstrate possible long-term health impact
- extrapolating from short-term studies
- existing longer duration studies in the public literature
- robust and reliable evidence
J.A. 53, 82-83
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- the trends by which users consume the product over time,
- surveys.
Pet. App. 167a, 227a, 279a
appendix
not verified
J.A. 81, 105
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- why the data used are applicable to [the] new tobacco product.
J.A. 105
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- unique studies for each nicotine concentration
- may be bridged to other concentrations,
- justification
J.A. 87-88
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- the attractiveness of flavors to youth and young adults,
J.A. 88
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- impact of the flavoring
- adult appeal of such flavors.
Pet. App. 6a, 31-32a
appendix
not verified
Product Application Content Overview 1
party filing
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- This is not a formal dissemination of information by FDA and does not represent Agency position or policy.
Pet. App. 45a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- d[id] not represent Agency position or policy,
- change in [FDA's] position,
- [n]o specific studies are required.
Pet. App. 37a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- scientific goal line
Pet. App. 27a-28a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 40a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- literature reviews involving non-flavored products
- the public health benefits of flavored e-cigarettes
J.A. 5
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public.
- Contains Nonbinding Recommendations.
Pet. App. 48a
appendix
not verified
J.A. 83
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- recommend[ed] sharing your marketing plan.
J.A. 220
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- vigorously enforc[ing]
- age verification alone is not sufficient to address this issue.
J.A. 138
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- mystery shopper programs
- contractual penalties
- age-verification technology
- the quantity of [e-cigarette] products that a customer may purchase within a given period of time.
J.A. 147
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- surge in youth use of [e-cigarette] products.
J.A. 218
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- alarming data
- youth use of [e-cigarette] products,
- show[ed] that the FDA's enforcement efforts to date did not adequately address this problem.
- The reality [wa]s that youth
J.A. 166
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- continued access to [e-cigarette] products in the face of legal prohibitions and even after voluntary actions by some manufacturers.
- [F]ocusing on how the product was sold would not appropriately address youth use.
J.A. 220-221
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- [A]ge verification alone is not sufficient to address this issue, given the most recent data that youth use of [e-cigarette] products continues to increase.
Pet. App. 57a-61a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 59a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- required to take the same action no matter what.
Pet. App. 57a-59a
appendix
not verified
J.A. 145
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- [f ]lavored, cartridge-based [e-cigarettes].
J.A. 143
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- small, enclosed unit,
- pod.
Pet. App. 14a
appendix
not verified
J.A. 155
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- youth overwhelmingly prefer[red] cartridge-based [e-cigarette] products.
J.A. 156, 163
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- relatively small size
- easy to conceal
- used discreetly.
J.A. 156-157
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- intuitive and convenient features
- there are no settings to change and very little assembly is required.
J.A. 145-146
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 191a, 246a, 299a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- variability in the popularity of device types among youth,
Marketing Applications for About 55,000 Flavored E-Cigarette Products for Failing to Provide Evidence That They Appropriately Protect Public Health 1
party filing
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- applications for about 55,000 flavored [ecigarette] products
- three applicants.
J.A. 401
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 258a-259a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- sensory and subjective experience (taste, throat hit, nicotine delivery),
- how the device itself looks and feels.
Footnote 1
footnote
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- flavored product