Hill Dermaceuticals, Inc. v. Food & Drug Administration

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that district court properly declined to consider “21 extra-record declarations that purportedly provide[d] detailed technical information” because the information was not before the agency when it acted
• explaining that a reviewing court should not have more information before it than the agency did when making its decision
• “[I]t is black-letter administrative law that in an APA case, a reviewing court “should have before it neither more nor less information than did the agency when it made its decision.”
• “[I]t is black-letter administrative law that in an APA case, a reviewing court should have before it neither more nor less information than did the agency when it made its decision.”
• “[I]t is black-letter administrative law that in an APA case, a reviewing court should have before it neither more nor less information than did the agency when it made its decision.” (internal quotation omitted)
• “[I]t is black-letter administrative law that in an APA case, a reviewing court ‘should have before it neither more nor less information than did the agency when it made its decision.’ ” (quoting Walter O. Boswell Mem’l Hosp. v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 788, 792 (D.C. Cir. 1984)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).