Noramco of Delaware, Inc. v. Drug Enforcement Administration

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that the DEA argued in one registration (Johnson Mat-they) that no analysis -of competition is required
• noting that in a different registration (Penick) the DEA addressed competition and supply factors
• rejecting, in part, claim that DEA misinterpreted CSA as not requiring consideration of foreign diversion because “the DEA in fact considered and rejected the contention that Penick’s registration would increase diversion in India”
• “[T]he Congress was concerned with preventing diversion in this country rather than abroad.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).