CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, ET AL V. MICHAEL REGAN, ET AL
| Docket Number | 19-72109 |
| Decision Date | 21 December 2022 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
8 cases
-
Solar Energy Indus. Ass'n v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
...of the agency's errors against 'the disruptive consequences of an interim change that may itself be changed.'" Center for Food Safety v. Regan, 56 F.4th 648, 663 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Allied-Signal, 988 F.2d at 150-51). Here, although the agency's errors are significant, the disruptive c......
-
Migrant Clinicians Network v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency
...and sold in the United States, the EPA must satisfy the requirements of FIFRA and the ESA. See, e.g., Ctr. for Food Safety v. Regan, 56 F.4th 648, 652-53 (9th Cir. 2022). FIFRA "is a comprehensive regulatory scheme" governing "the use, sale, and labeling of pesticides." Nathan Kimmel, Inc. ......
-
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency
...better reasoning and adopt the same rule on remand. In comparison to NFFC (Monsanto), the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in 2022 in Ctr. for Food Safety finding procedural errors similar to those at issue here, remanded without vacating registrations for sulfoxaflor, an insecticide that ca......
-
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Bureau of Land Mgmt.
...such fundamental flaws in the agency's decision make it unlikely that the same [decision] would be adopted on remand.” Ctr. for Food Safety, 56 F.4th at 663-64 Pollinator Stewardship, 806 F.3d at 532). BLM and P4 argue that the identified deficiencies in the Court's summary judgment decisio......
Request a trial to view additional results