M.A. Bruder & Sons, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that even if the FDA inadequately reviewed petitioners’ marketing plans, the error was harmless because petitioners failed to “show that they would have received authorization had [the] FDA considered the[] plans”
• finding that even if it was error to ignore an applicant’s marketing plans, it was harmless because petitioners failed to “show that they would have received authorization had [the] FDA considered the[] plans”
• noting the “FDA had already explained” that limiting products to “age-gated vape and specialty tobacco shops and through age-gated online sales” “do not work”
• explaining the “FDA had already explained,” for example, that “products . . . [being] only sold in age-gated vape and specialty tobacco shops and through age-gated online sales” “do not work”
• merits panel denying the petition for review

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).