Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Crawford
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
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
- Abbott Laboratories v. GardnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Hilburn v. Murata Electronics North America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1999
- Wooden v. Board of Regents of the University System of GeorgiaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2001
- Nutraceutical Corp. v. Von EschenbachCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2006
- 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
- United States v. 5 Unlabeled BoxesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2009
- United States v. GarrityDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2018
- Bank of New York Mellon v. Jefferson County (In re Jefferson County)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama · 2012
- Bank of New York Mellon v. Jefferson County (In re Jefferson County)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama · 2012