Burdette Cooperage Co. v. Bunting

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “further notice and comment are not required when additional fact gathering merely supplements information in the rulemaking record ... without changing methodology”
• finding that vacatur was inappropriate because many businesses had already come into compliance with the invalid rule, meaning that vacatur could cause, significant disruption in the industry
• stating that failure to comply with notice and comment “cannot be considered harmless if there is any uncertainty at all as to the effect of that failure” (quotation omitted)
• observing that a second round of notice and comment is not required when an agency “merely supplements information in the rulemaking record” by “internally generating information using a methodology disclosed in the rulemaking record”
• finding a violation where “extra-record materials supplied] the basic assumptions used by the [agency] to establish the range of costs [of] complying with [a rule’s] conditions”
• noting potential for disruption where “a significant portion of the mutual fund industry” had come into compliance with challenged rule

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).