A.L. Pharma, Inc. v. Donna E. Shalala

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that FDA decision may have been arbitrary and capricious but finding remand proper so FDA could reconsider or provide adequate explanation for determination
• observing that the court “must defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations ‘unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation’ ”
• observing that the court “must defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations ‘unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation’”
• noting that the requirement that an agency explain its decision enables courts to fulfill their duty of ensuring non-arbitrary decisionmaking under the APA
• explaining that vacatur inappropriate because \nothing in the record suggests that significant harm would result from allowing the approval to remain in effect pending the agency's further explanation\
• explaining that vacatur inappropriate because “nothing in the record suggests that significant harm would result from allowing the approval to remain in effect pending the agency’s further explanation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).