Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Third Circuit· 8/12/2009

Holk v. Snapple Beverage Corp.

Citations

  • 575 F.3d 329
  • 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 17948
  • 2009 WL 2449561

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • recognizing that implied preemption comes in two varieties: field preemption and conflict preemption
  • finding that the above-referenced FDA guidance does not amount to a formal definition of the term \natural\
  • explaining that although we may affirm on alternative grounds, “this rule does not apply to cases in which the party has waived the issue in the district court.”
  • observing that the “FDA’s policy statement” is “not entitled to preemptive effect”
  • observing , that \courts may not find implied preemption based on any provision of the NLEA” and that labeling claims are “impliedly preempted” only if \based on provisions of federal law other than NLEA”
  • “the FDA’s policy statement regarding use of the term ‘natural’ is not entitled to preemptive effect.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Barry, Smith, Restani

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

42 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Holk v. Snapple Beverage Corp.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.