labeling standard in Texas

2009The Court explained that the preamble was not an agency regulation with the force of law such that it could preempt conflicting state law, but was only a “mere assertion” of the FDA’s position; therefore, “[t]he weight we accord the agency’s explanation of state law’s impact on the federal scheme depends on its thoroughness, consistency, and persuasiveness.” Id. at 1201 (citing United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 234-35 , 121 S.Ct. 2164 , 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001); Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 , 65 S.Ct. 161 , 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944)).

2009The Court explained that the preamble was not an agency regulation with the force of law such that it could preempt conflicting state law, but was only a “mere assertion” of the FDA’s position; therefore, “[t]he weight we accord the agency’s explanation of state law’s impact on the federal scheme depends on its thoroughness, consistency, and persuasiveness.” Id. at 1201 (citing United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 234-35 , 121 S.Ct. 2164 , 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001); Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 , 65 S.Ct. 161 , 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944)).

2001We have also been urged to conclude that the labeling requirement exceeds TDH’s statutory authority because it is not “reasonably necessary,” in a brief relying on Texas Department of Human Services v. Christian Care Centers, 826 S.W.2d 715 (Tex. App.-Austin 1992, writ denied).

2001Christian Care Centers , 826 S.W.2d 715 (Tex.App.-Austin 1992, writ denied).

2021The Court’s opinion in Baumgart also recognized that several “other court-of- appeals cases have construed similar Penal Code provisions containing ‘does not apply’ language [like the language in Section 19.06] as creating defenses under § 2.03(e).” Id. at 345. 2 2 Footnote 67 in the Court’s opinion in Baumgart listed the following examples: Smith v. State, 959 S.W.2d 1 , 22 n.35 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, pet. ref’d) (exemptions under Penal Code HUNTER ― 11 This Court observed in Baumgart that “[t]he legislature has shown that it knows how to create exceptions in the Penal Code that conform exactl

2020Looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the habeas court’s ruling, there was overwhelming evidence of Appellant’s intoxication to support the jury’s finding of guilt regardless of Gooden’s testimony.45 Appellant was speeding and made several unsafe lane 43 See Ex parte Weinstein, 421 S.W.3d at 664 n.17 (we give deference to the habeas court’s factual findings underlying its decision but review the ultimate legal conclusion of materiality de novo); Kniatt, 206 S.W.3d at 664 (an appellate court reviewing a trial judge's ruling on a habeas claim must uphold that ruling absent an ab

2020Looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the habeas court’s ruling, there was overwhelming evidence of Appellant’s intoxication to support the jury’s finding of guilt regardless of Gooden’s testimony.45 Appellant was speeding and made several unsafe lane 43 See Ex parte Weinstein, 421 S.W.3d at 664 n.17 (we give deference to the habeas court’s factual findings underlying its decision but review the ultimate legal conclusion of materiality de novo); Kniatt, 206 S.W.3d at 664 (an appellate court reviewing a trial judge's ruling on a habeas claim must uphold that ruling absent an ab

2002The Tennessee court found “no escape” from concluding that the labeling requirement imposed “unreasonable and discriminatory restrictions and burdens upon interstate and foreign commerce, and so run[s] afoul of the Commerce Clause.” Id. at 645 ; see also Int ‘I Packers Ltd. v. Hughes, 271 F. Supp. 430, 433 (S.D.