The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
|
Reviewing |
|
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 19:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Id. at 483.and ref 26 should be
Crittenden, supra note 20, at 369 (quoting Chaney v. Hecker, 718 F.2d 1173, 1183, 1185 (D.C. Cir. 1983)).. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some random notes:
In January 1981, Chaney, Skillern, and the petitioned– Something is missing after "the".
The D.C. Circuit's interpretation of Overton Park, then, essentially constituted complete disregard of the Supreme Court's decision under the guise of following it.– This should be attributed, not stated in wikivoice. Given that there were two sides to this case, and it was criticized, certainly several scholars and others at least think the D.C. Circuit had things correct.
reaffirming the doctrine that statutory limits on discretion were necessary to prompt review– Should this say preempt, instead of prompt?
says that Chaney fell into the same trap as Overturn Park by continuing to make unreviewable nonstatutory claims of abuse of discretion– Why was this a trap, according to Levin?
He also argues that prosecutorial decisions have "fundamental differences" from agency enforcement decisions.– What are the differences he lays out?
leeky: Great work. Spot check to come. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The court of appeals had relied on a policy statement indicating that the agency considered itself "obligated" to act against unapproved uses of approved drugs,6 but the statement was ambiguous and was in any event appended to a rule that the agency never adopted.unless you want to dispute that it's the same policy statement? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
arguing the following. The Court never argues, it reasons (unless you happen to be a dissenting judge, in which case the majority argues, or if you want to be harsh, asserts). voorts (talk/contributions) 01:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
− |
| + | Whereas action may require the use of an agency's "coercive power", inaction does not infringe upon a person's rights. |
− |
which | + | which is owed deference by the courts |
The court distinguished Dunlop as precedent, holding that in that case, there was reasonable "law to apply" in that the relevant act could have required the secretary to take the requested action under certain circumstances.Page 256 of Stolls does not discuss Dunlop.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.