Case Citator › Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
387 U.S. 136
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
43 of 43
Citing cases (total)
6,134
Treatment dates
1977
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner has been limited: all 43 flagged citations have been read, with the 1 confirmed treatment listed below. Califano v. Sanders rejected the view that the Administrative Procedure Act independently grants subject-matter jurisdiction, a view that Abbott had arguably assumed without discussion.
More on how this was screened

The other reviewed opinions applied Abbott's ripeness, finality, hardship, and reviewability rules positively, distinguished its facts without confining its holdings, or placed treatment language next to another authority.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

6,134 later cases cite Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner; 43 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Supreme Court rejected any reading of Abbott as establishing that the Administrative Procedure Act independently grants subject-matter jurisdiction to review agency action.

    Califano v. Sanders · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Three decisions of this Court arguably have assumed, with little discussion, that the APA is an independent grant of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402, 410 (1971); Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 141 (1967); Rusk v. Cort, 369 U. S. 367, 372 (1962). However, an Act of Congress enacted since our grant of certiorari in this case now persuades us that the better view is that the APA is not to be interpreted as an implied grant of subject-matter jurisdiction to review agency actions.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace