Skip to main content
D.C. Circuit· 2/22/2013

Nick Koretoff v. Tom Vilsack

Citations

  • 404 U.S. App. D.C. 96
  • 707 F.3d 394
  • 2013 WL 645929
  • 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3695

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that even final rules need not comprehensively explain relevant legal theories
  • rejecting argument that “the Secretary was ‘obligated under the APA to address [his] statutory authority sua sponte,’ whether ‘raised by a commenter or not’ ”
  • arguments not raised before agency may be raised in timely challenge to application of rule
  • forfeiture does not preclude ability to challenge rule “if and when the Secretary applies” it
  • “A party will normally forfeit an opportunity to challenge an agency rulemaking on a ground that was not first presented to the agency for its initial consideration.” (quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Tatel, Brown, Williams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

36 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.