Cluster 750
green
· 75 citation events
across 9 courts.
Showing the 22 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
But see Prime Time, 599 F.3d at 685-86 (affirming dismissal of Information Quality Act challenge on different grounds without addressing argument that the statute creates no legal rights in third parties).
affirming dismissal of Information Quality Act challenge on different grounds without addressing argument that the statute creates no legal rights in third parties
yellow
United States v. Tourtellot (2012)
But see Prime Time Int’l Co. v. Vilsack, 599 F.3d 678, 681, 683 (D.C.Cir.2010) (remanding a small cigar manufacturer’s challenge to its FETRA assessment to the district court with instructions to remand to the Department of Agriculture for further proceedings because FETRA did not appear subject to a single interpretation in this respect). .
As Judge Lamberth explained, Prime Time I “remanded the case to USDA so it could properly exercise agency expertise, and took no position on whether the current per-stick rule could be permissible under Chevron step 2.” Prime Time International Co. v. Vilsack, 930 F.Supp.2d 240, 251 (D.D.C.2013); see also Prime Time I, 599 F.3d at 683 (“For the purpose of this appeal, the court need only observe that USDA’s present interpretation is not mandated by the plain text of FETRA.”).
“For the purpose of this appeal, the court need only observe that USDA’s present interpretation is not mandated by the plain text of FETRA.”
green
Overdevest Nurseries, L.P. v. Martin Walsh (2021)
Co. v. Vilsack, 599 F.3d 678, 683 (D.C.
green
Avmed, Inc. v. Azar (2021)
Ass’n, 964 F.3d at 1241 (quoting Prime Time Int’l Co. v. Vilsack, 599 F.3d 678, 683 (D.C.
green
American Hospital Association v. Alex Azar, II (2020)
Co v. Vilsack, 599 F.3d 678, 683 (D.C.
quoting Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842–43 & n.9
green
Michael Molock v. Whole Foods Market, Inc. (2020)
And it is also true that “issues and legal theories not asserted in the district court ordinarily will not be heard on appeal.” Prime Time International Co. v. Vilsack, 599 F.3d 678, 686 (D.C.
internal quotation marks omitted
green
David Myers v. Cmsnr. IRS (2019)
Although Myers did not preserve his other two objections, we exercise our discretion to resolve this “straightforward legal question” that “both parties have fully addressed ... on appeal.” Prime Time Int’l Co. v. Vilsack, 599 F.3d 678, 686 (D.C.
The- Court also has found it appropriate to resolve issues not raised in the district court where the case “involves a straightforward- legal question, and both parties have fully addressed the issue on appeal.” Prime Time Int’l Co. v. Vilsack, 599 F.3d 678, 686 (D.C.
green
Harkonen v. United States Department of Justice (2015)
Prime Time Int’l Co. v. Vilsack, 599 F.3d 678, 685 (D.C.Cir.2010).
green
Swanson Group Mfg. LLC v. Sally Jewell (2015)
The filing of a notice of appeal has little bearing on the purpose to allow “the trial forum vested with authority to determine questions of fact” the opportunity to evaluate “all the evidence [the parties] believe relevant to the issues,” Prime Time Int’l Co. v. Vilsack, 599 F.3d 678, 686 (D.C.Cir.2010) (quoting Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 556 , 61 S.Ct. 719 , 85 L.Ed. 1037 (1941)); see United States v. *242 Bonds, 12 F.3d 540, 552-53 (6th Cir.1993); 16A WRIGHT et al…
green
Validus Reinsurance, Ltd. v. United States (2015)
Even assuming this argument is properly before the court, but see Prime Time Int’l Co. v. Vilsack, 599 F.3d 678, 686 (D.C.Cir.2010), and that after Morrison the presumption against extraterritoriality leaves room for such deference, but see Liu Meng-Lin v. Siemens AG, 763 F.3d 175, 182 (2d Cir.2014), the argument is unavailing.
green
John Lesesne v. John Doe (2013)
As a general rule, “issues and legal theories not asserted in the district court ordinarily will not be heard on appeal.” Prime Time Int’l Co. v. Vilsack, 599 F.3d 678, 686 (D.C.Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
green
Jones v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International (2011)
As we have repeatedly emphasized, “legal theories not asserted in the district court ordinarily will not be heard on appeal.” Prime Time Int’l Co. v. Vilsack, 599 F.3d 678, 686 (D.C.Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Jones v. Home, 634 F.3d 588 , 603 *1105 (D.C.Cir.2011); Hall v. Ford, 856 F.2d 255, 267 (D.C.Cir.1988).
green
Jones v. Horne (2011)
See Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 556 , 61 S.Ct. 719 , 85 L.Ed. 1037 (1941); Prime Time Int’l Co. v. Vilsack, 599 F.3d 678, 686 (D.C.Cir. 2010) (citations omitted).
citations omitted
green
FAMILY FARM ALLIANCE v. Salazar (2010)
Id. *1100 Prime Time, 599 F.3d at 686 (emphasis added).
emphasis added
green
Habitat for Horses v. Salazar (2010)
Reg. at 8460; Prime Time Int’l Co. v. Vilsack, 599 F.3d 678, 685 (D.C.Cir.2010).
green
Crowley Government Services, Inc. v. GSA (2025)
See id. (quoting Prime Time Int’l Co. v. Vilsack, 599 F.3d 678, 686 (D.C.
green
United States v. Fernandez-Jorge (2018)
See Prime Time Int'l Co. v. Vilsack, 599 F.3d 678, 686 (D.C.
quoting Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 556 (1941)
green
United States v. Fernandez-Jorge (2018)
See Prime Time Int'l Co. v. Vilsack , 599 F.3d 678 , 686 (D.C.
quoting Hormel v. Helvering , 312 U.S. 552 , 556, 61 S.Ct. 719 , 85 L.Ed. 1037 (1941)
green
United States v. Prime Time International Company (2013)
See generally Prime Time Int’l Co. v. Vilsack, 599 F.3d 678, 681 (D.C.Cir. 2010) (describing history of case).
describing history of case
See, e.g., Prime Time Int’l Co. v. Vilsack, 599 F.3d 678 (D.C.Cir.2010); Single Stick, Inc. v. Johanns, 601 F.Supp.2d 307 (D.D.C.2009); In re Evans, 337 B.R. 551 (Bankr.E.D.N.C.2005).