489 U.S. 749 (1989) Cited 1,949 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that disclosure of "[o]fficial information that sheds light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties falls squarely within [FOIA's] statutory purpose"
Holding that "the comprehensiveness of FOIA precludes the creation of a Bivens remedy" when plaintiff alleged defendant's "mishandling of FOIA request violated his constitutional right to due process under the Fifth Amendment"
Concluding that the term drug “is plainly intended throughout the Act to include entire drug products, complete with active and inactive ingredients” and must “include more than just active ingredients ... unless subsection (D) is to be superfluous”
Holding that "in the absence of a particularized FOIA request" implicating a challenged regulation, the regulation's validity was not ripe for judicial review
Noting that the Hatch-Waxman Act reflected a statutory compromise between generic and pioneer drug manufacturers, and that the Act also provided several market advantages for pioneer drug manufacturers
5 U.S.C. § 552 Cited 12,345 times 558 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Court's entering of a “Stipulation and Order” approving the parties' terms of dismissal did not amount to a “court-ordered consent decree” that would render the plaintiff the prevailing party