§Why CasetextPricing

Sherley et al v. Sebelius et al

Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Summary Judgment

75 Cited authorities

  1. Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council

    467 U.S. 837 (1984)   Cited 16,017 times   502 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress"

  2. Melkonyan v. Sullivan

    501 U.S. 89 (1991)   Cited 5,693 times
    Holding that a district court may not use inherent power to remand in a disability benefits case

  3. Daimlerchrysler Corp. v. Cuno

    547 U.S. 332 (2006)   Cited 2,647 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an injury a plaintiff "suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally" is not a cognizable injury-in-fact

  4. Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.

    527 U.S. 471 (1999)   Cited 2,896 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " person whose physical or mental impairment is corrected by medication or other measures does not have an impairment that presently 'substantially limits' a major life activity."

  5. Barnhart v. Walton

    535 U.S. 212 (2002)   Cited 2,166 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the “‘ 12 month' duration requirements apply to both the ‘impairment' and the ‘inability' to work requirements”

  6. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.

    519 U.S. 337 (1997)   Cited 2,471 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the term “employees” carries a different meaning in different sections of Title VII

  7. Auer v. Robbins

    519 U.S. 452 (1997)   Cited 2,337 times   88 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal agency's interpretation of a regulation is controlling where it is not "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation"

  8. Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

    542 U.S. 55 (2004)   Cited 1,466 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that agency can be compelled to act if time period is specified by law

  9. Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms

    561 U.S. 139 (2010)   Cited 1,144 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs, alfalfa farmers, had standing based on a causal chain, though plaintiffs did not identify particular alfalfa plants that had been, or would necessarily be, pollinated by bees who carried the genetically engineered gene at issue

  10. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.

    556 U.S. 502 (2009)   Cited 1,043 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that agencies may not change their policies "sub silentio "

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 345,805 times   922 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,681 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  13. Section 289 - Institutional review boards; ethics guidance program

    42 U.S.C. § 289   Cited 18 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a) The Secretary shall by regulation require that each entity which applies for a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement under this chapter for any project or program which involves the conduct of biomedical or behavioral research involving human subjects submit in or with its application for such grant, contract, or cooperative agreement assurances satisfactory to the Secretary that it has established (in accordance with regulations which the Secretary shall prescribe) a board (to be known as

  14. Section 289g - Fetal research

    42 U.S.C. § 289g   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) Conduct or support by Secretary; restrictions The Secretary may not conduct or support any research or experimentation, in the United States or in any other country, on a nonviable living human fetus ex utero or a living human fetus ex utero for whom viability has not been ascertained unless the research or experimentation- (1) may enhance the well-being or meet the health needs of the fetus or enhance the probability of its survival to viability; or (2) will pose no added risk of suffering,

  15. Section 282 - Director of National Institutes of Health

    42 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 4 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Instructing NIH to post "[p]ublic notices" for clinical trials that "fail[ed] to submit" or "submit[ed] false or misleading" results

  16. Section 284 - Directors of national research institutes

    42 U.S.C. § 284   Cited 2 times

    (a) Appointment (1) In general The Director of the National Cancer Institute shall be appointed by the President, and the Directors of the other national research institutes and national centers shall be appointed by the Secretary, acting through the Director of National Institutes of Health. Each Director of a national research institute or national center shall report directly to the Director of National Institutes of Health. (2) Appointment (A) Term A Director of a national research institute

  17. Section 46.204 - Research involving pregnant women or fetuses

    45 C.F.R. § 46.204   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that "[i]ndividuals engaged" in research involving "[p]regnant women or fetuses" "have no part in any decisions as to the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate a pregnancy"

  18. Section 52.2 - Definitions

    42 C.F.R. § 52.2   Cited 3 times

    As used in this part: Act means the Public Health Service Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.). Grantee means the institution, organization, individual or other person designated in the grant award document as the responsible legal entity to whom a grant is awarded under this part. The term shall also mean the recipient of a cooperative agreement awarded under this part. HHS means the Department of Health and Human Services. Principal investigator means the individual(s) judged by the applicant