§Why CasetextPricing

Tummino et al v. Hamburg et al

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re MOTION to Stay re Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, 87 Clerk's Judgment,,, : MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL. If the Court is not inclined to grant our motion for a stay pending appeal, the government moves for a temporary administ

18 Cited authorities

  1. Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

    542 U.S. 55 (2004)   Cited 1,487 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that agency can be compelled to act if time period is specified by law

  2. Elrod v. Burns

    427 U.S. 347 (1976)   Cited 4,236 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that local government could not constitutionally base public employment opportunities on political affiliation or nonaffiliation

  3. Florida Power Light Co. v. Lorion

    470 U.S. 729 (1985)   Cited 1,888 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Hobbs Act vests in the court of appeals initial judicial review authority over an NRC order denying a petition under 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 for suspension of an operating license

  4. Carey v. Population Services International

    431 U.S. 678 (1977)   Cited 842 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a provider of contraceptives could bring a derivative constitutional challenge on behalf of potential customers

  5. American Bioscience, Inc. v. Thompson

    269 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2001)   Cited 529 times
    Holding that relief on an APA claim "normally will be a vacatur of the agency's order"

  6. Women's Medical Center of Northwest Houston v. Bell

    248 F.3d 411 (5th Cir. 2001)   Cited 227 times
    Noting that "without violating the Constitution, the State could have required all abortion providers to be licensed"

  7. Mohammed v. Reno

    309 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2002)   Cited 200 times
    Holding that a stay of removal may issue even when the alien's chance of ultimate success is less than 50 percent because, "[i]f the likelihood were more than 50 percent, the appellant would be required to persuade the stay panel that he was more likely than not to win the appeal before the merits panel, just to obtain the critical opportunity to maintain the status quo until the merits panel considers the appeal"

  8. In re World Trade Center Disaster

    503 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 153 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that harm to defendants, who might be entitled to immunity from suit, was outweighed by hastening plaintiffs’ trial

  9. Wisdom Import Sales Co. v. Labatt Brewing Co.

    339 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2003)   Cited 147 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that, under New York law, "oral agreements are binding and enforceable absent a clear expression of the parties' intent to be bound only by a writing"

  10. Thapa v. Gonzales

    460 F.3d 323 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 125 times
    Holding that the Court has the authority to stay an order of voluntary departure

  11. Section 706 - Scope of review

    5 U.S.C. § 706   Cited 20,534 times   185 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts jurisdiction to "compel agency action unlawfully held or unreasonably delayed"

  12. Rule 62 - Stay of Proceedings to Enforce a Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 62   Cited 4,155 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Granting of stay is discretionary

  13. Section 355 - New drugs

    21 U.S.C. § 355   Cited 2,253 times   341 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"

  14. Section 353 - Exemptions and consideration for certain drugs, devices, and biological products

    21 U.S.C. § 353   Cited 300 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a prescription drug label to bear the symbol "Rx only"

  15. Section 310.200 - Prescription-exemption procedure

    21 C.F.R. § 310.200   Cited 11 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a)Duration of prescription requirement. Any drug limited to prescription use under section 503(b)(1)(B) of the act remains so limited until it is exempted as provided in paragraph (b) or (e) of this section. (b)Prescription-exemption procedure for drugs limited by a new drug application. Any drug limited to prescription use under section 503(b)(1)(B) of the act shall be exempted from prescription-dispensing requirements when the Commissioner finds such requirements are not necessary for the protection