Pearson v. Shalala: The beginning of the end for FDA speech suppression

Journal of Public Policy and Marketing

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 139-143

  Emord, Jonathan W ^a  

^a Emord and Associates PC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034400635     PISSN: 07439156     EISSN: 15477207     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1509/jppm.19.1.139.16945     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York (1980), 477 U.S. 557, 566.
2. Pearson v. Slialala (1999), 164 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 1999) reh'g denied 172 F.3d 72 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
3. U.S. House (1997), Report 105-306,105th Cong., 1st Sess., (Oct. 6).
4. U.S. Senate (1994), Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, Report 103-410, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., (Oct. 9).
5. _ (1997), Food and Drug Administration Modernization and Accountability Act of 1997, Report 105-43, 105th Cong., 1st Sess., (July 1).
6. Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. (1976), 425 U.S. 748, 770.