19 Cited authorities

  1. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assoc. of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.

    463 U.S. 29 (1983)   Cited 6,653 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " `settled course of behavior embodies the agency's informed judgment that, by pursuing that course, it will carry out the policies [of applicable statutes or regulations]'"
  2. United States v. Mead Corp.

    533 U.S. 218 (2001)   Cited 2,599 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Customs classification ruling "has no claim to judicial deference under Chevron " but can "claim respect according to its persuasiveness"
  3. Barnhart v. Walton

    535 U.S. 212 (2002)   Cited 2,169 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the “‘ 12 month' duration requirements apply to both the ‘impairment' and the ‘inability' to work requirements”
  4. Christensen v. Harris County

    529 U.S. 576 (2000)   Cited 1,895 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that agency interpretations contained in "policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines, all of which lack the force of law do not warrant Chevron-style deference"
  5. Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital

    488 U.S. 204 (1988)   Cited 1,721 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts will not defer to an agency's litigating position where it contradicts the agency's prior “regulations, rulings, or administrative practice”
  6. Burlington Truck Lines v. U.S.

    371 U.S. 156 (1962)   Cited 1,948 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding a rule invalid under the APA where "the Commission made no findings specifically directed to the choice between two vastly different remedies with vastly different consequences to the carriers and the public . . . [and failed to] articulate any rational connection between the facts found and the choice made"
  7. Allentown Mack Sales & Service, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    522 U.S. 359 (1998)   Cited 419 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board "is not free to prescribe what inferences from the evidence it will accept and reject, but must draw all those inferences that the evidence fairly demands"
  8. Investment Co. Institute v. Camp

    401 U.S. 617 (1971)   Cited 313 times
    Holding that association of investment companies had standing to challenge regulation authorizing banks to operate collective investment funds
  9. Doe v. United States Dept. of Justice

    753 F.2d 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1985)   Cited 422 times
    Holding that claim should not be dismissed if some type of relief, not limited to relief asked for in the complaint, can be awarded
  10. Fox v. Clinton

    684 F.3d 67 (D.C. Cir. 2012)   Cited 103 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the State Department's denial of the appellant's request for a certificate of loss of nationality that would acknowledge his surrender of U.S. citizenship was “arbitrary and capricious,” because it was not “logical,” “rational,” or “adequately explained”
  11. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,061 times   1055 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"
  12. Section 355 - New drugs

    21 U.S.C. § 355   Cited 2,252 times   340 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to change the date on which an ANDA may be approved if "either party to the action failed to reasonably cooperate in expediting the action"
  13. Section 355a - Pediatric studies of drugs

    21 U.S.C. § 355a   Cited 68 times   12 Legal Analyses

    (a) Definitions As used in this section, the term "pediatric studies" or "studies" means at least one clinical investigation (that, at the Secretary's discretion, may include pharmacokinetic studies) in pediatric age groups (including neonates in appropriate cases) in which a drug is anticipated to be used, and, at the discretion of the Secretary, may include preclinical studies. (b) Market exclusivity for new drugs (1) In general Except as provided in paragraph (2), if, prior to approval of an application