Reckitt Benckiser Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that EPA’s interpretation of statute, as contained in a pre-enforcement letter, was sufficiently final where the letter “unequivocally informed” the party that its products “would be considered misbranded” under the statute (emphasis in original)
• “evaluating EPA’s interpretation of its authority under FIFRA to implement the RMD through enforcement proceedings for misbranding is a prerequisite to evaluating [plaintiffs] contentions that EPA improperly delayed or refused to initiate Section 6 cancellation proceedings”
• “evaluating EPA’s interpretation of its authority under FIFRA to implement the RMD through enforcement proceedings for misbranding is a prerequisite to evaluating [plaintiff’s] contentions that EPA improperly delayed or refused to initiate Section 6 cancellation proceedings”
• finding hardship where “sworn declarations by company officials” showed that “the company has been forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on research and development of []compliant products” and expected to incur “an additional one million dollars to conclude development”
• finding hardship where “sworn declarations by company officials” showed that “the company has been forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on research and development of [ ]compliant products” and expected to incur “an additional- one million dollars to conclude development”
• “A pesticide product remains registered until EPA or the registrant can cels it pursuant to Section 6.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).