Court Decisions Court Rules Manufacturing 
SCOTUSBlog
JANUARY 24, 2025
The question comes to the court as part of the FDAs efforts to regulate the multibillion-dollar vaping industry. In 2016, the FDA issued a rule indicating that the law applies to e-cigarettes and e-liquids. What arguments could you raise, she queried, that would be different than the manufacturer?
SCOTUSBlog
MARCH 20, 2023
The case involves a dispute between Jack Daniel’s (the largest American whiskey manufacturer) and VIP Products (the second-largest American dog toy manufacturer). 7 Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” manufactured by “Jack Daniel’s,” the toy refers to a “Bad Spaniel” that makes “Old No. 2 on your Tennessee carpet.”
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
FDA Law Blog
JUNE 7, 2023
Claud & Faraz Siddiqui — As we move into the heat of the summer, we can look forward to the annual June deluge of opinions coming from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Decision The unanimous Supreme Court was having none of it.
JURIST
NOVEMBER 1, 2021
A Second Circuit decision vacated two lower court rulings which allowed healthcare workers to claim religious exemptions to New York’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The decision also vacated an injunction from the Northern District of New York and a prior Second Circuit ruling on an Eastern District of New York case.
SCOTUSBlog
APRIL 20, 2022
Some older Supreme Court decisions support that theory of consent. Some courts read [Supreme Court precedent] as effectively foreclosing [this consent-by-registration theory of jurisdiction], while others insist it remains viable.”. In Cooper Tire & Rubber Company v.
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
OCTOBER 25, 2024
The federal court ruled resoundingly in favor of SIFMA, finding for plaintiffs on all counts. The SEC has argued the petition is moot because it already allowed the corporation to exclude the proposal, but the case remains open, and intervenor party NAM (the National Association of Manufacturers) is still pursuing the case.
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
SEPTEMBER 10, 2021
Under the Endangered Species Act, the court vacated the FWS’s biological opinion because the incidental take statement lacked “the requisite specificity of mitigation measures for the polar bear” and because the take finding for the polar bear was arbitrary and capricious. Northern Plains Resource Council v. Army Corps of Engineers , No.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
89 
Let's personalize your content