Legal Opinion

Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Crawford

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Decided October 7, 2008No. 07-14309, 07-14312PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

We consider in this appeal whether 21 U.S.C. § 342(f)(l)’s de novo provision impacts the evidentiary weight to be given to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations. Section 342(f)(l)’s de novo provision provides that a reviewing court shall decide any issue in an adulterated dietary supplement proceeding de novo. The issue is whether a FDA regulation which declares that dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids are adulterated is sufficient proof of adulteration, or is more evidence needed under § 342(f)(l)’s de novo provision? Because FDA regulations have the force and effect…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Abbott Laboratories v. GardnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Hilburn v. Murata Electronics North America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1999
  3. Wooden v. Board of Regents of the University System of GeorgiaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2001
  4. Nutraceutical Corp. v. Von EschenbachCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2006
  5. Nve Inc. v. Department Of Health And Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2006

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. United States v. 5 Unlabeled BoxesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2009
  2. United States v. GarrityDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2018
  3. Bank of New York Mellon v. Jefferson County (In re Jefferson County)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama · 2012
  4. Bank of New York Mellon v. Jefferson County (In re Jefferson County)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API