Bean Dredging, LLC v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, on remand, it was permissible for an agency to adopt a new interpretation of a regulation and apply it to the facts of the case even without considering additional facts
• holding that, on remand, it was permissible for an agency to adopt a new interpretation of a regulation and apply it to the facts of the case even without considering additional facts
• explaining that, even though “reasonable minds could differ” about the meaning of certain evidence, the agency’s position was not arbitrary because it “was considered and informed and had a rational basis” (citation omitted)
• OPA “[does] not confer upon such parties a right to a formal hearing, a right to present rebuttal evidence or argument, or really any procedural rights at all.”
• “[A] court need not find that the agency’s decision is ‘the only reasonable one, or even that it is the result [the court] would have reached had the question arisen in the first instance in judicial proceedings.’” (second alteration in original
• “Verraes et al. . . . recognize that “for cream made from raw milk, the main microbiological hazards are estimated to be [Listeria], [Staphylococcus], and [E. coli] because [Listeria] and [Staphylococcus] have been detected in cream and [E. coli] was linked to a cream outbreak.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).