Legal Opinion · Dissent
Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Ass'n v. Jorling
New York Court of Appeals
Decided February 9, 1995Published
1DissentCiparick, J.
We are all in agreement that the Commissioner may restrict the use of DEBT in high concentrations. We also agree that registrations for pesticide products not in compliance with the proposed DEBT concentration rule must be cancelled pursuant to title 7. We differ with the majority concerning the nature and content of the title 7 cancellation proceedings. Specifically, the majority holds that the scientific issues underlying the DEBT rule may not be "relitigated” during title 7 proceedings once they have been aired at an informal public rule-making hearing. Our analysis *399of article 33 as a…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Heckler v. CampbellSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Jackson v. New York State Urban Development Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1986
- United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Boreali v. AxelrodNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.