21 U.S.C. § 877
Judicial review
All final determinations, findings, and conclusions of the Attorney General under this subchapter shall be final and conclusive decisions of the matters involved, except that any person aggrieved by a final decision of the Attorney General may obtain review of the decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or for the circuit in which his principal place of business is located upon petition filed with the court and delivered to the Attorney General within thirty days after notice of the decision. Findings of fact by the Attorney General, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 131
cases (26 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: John Doe, Inc. v. Drug Enf't Admin., 484 F.3d 561 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
John Doe, Inc. v. Drug Enf't Admin., 484 F.3d 561 (D.C. Cir. 2007). “We conclude the district court correctly determined exclusive jurisdiction over Doe’s claims lies in the courts of appeals pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 877 . We further conclude the DEA acted within its discretion in denying Doe’s permit application.”
Hemp Indus. Ass'n v. DEA, 36 F.4th 278 (D.C. Cir. 2022). “21 U.S.C. § 877 ; see John Doe, Inc. v. DEA, 484 F.”
Bonds v. Tandy, 457 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. 2006). “Because we hold that 21 U.S.C. § 877 limits petitions for judicial review to those litigants with Article III standing and who are also arguably within the zone of interests of the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), 1 we find that Bonds lacks standing to challenge the agency’s…”
United States v. Forrester, 616 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2010). “The Court held that (1) direct, pre-enforcement review of a permanent scheduling order is plainly authorized by 21 U.S.C. § 877 and that petitioners wishing to challenge the order can do so when the temporary order becomes permanent, (2) the AG's compliance with his delegated…”
Tourus Records, Inc. v. Drug Enf't Admin., 259 F.3d 731 (D.C. Cir. 2001). “II Both Tourus and the government agree that we have jurisdiction to consider Tourus’ petition pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 877 . We agree as well. Section 877 grants this court jurisdiction to review “[a]ll final determinations, findings, and conclusions of the Attorney General…”
Novelty Distributors, Inc. v. Leonhart, 562 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2008). “Citing 21 U.S.C. § 877 , DEA argues that only a court of appeals can review “final determinations, findings, and conclusions of the Attorney General under this *25 subchapter.”
Americans for Safe Access v. Drug Enf't Admin., 706 F.3d 438 (D.C. Cir. 2013). “See 21 U.S.C. § 877 . Under this standard, we must “ask whether a reasonable mind might accept a particular evidentiary record as adequate to support a conclusion.”
PDK Labs. Inc. v. United States Drug Enf't Admin., 362 F.3d 786 (D.C. Cir. 2004). “A ruling , against the validity of the orders in this case, far from being an academic exercise, therefore has practical future consequences for PDK even if Indace or Malladi cancel their deals.”
Morris & Dickson Co. v. Whitaker, 360 F. Supp. 3d 434 (W.D. La. 2018). “21 U.S.C. § 877 . B. The Legal Framework Although district courts typically have jurisdiction over all questions arising under the Constitution, 28 U.”
Morall v. Drug Enf't Admin., 412 F.3d 165 (D.C. Cir. 2005). “See 21 U.S.C. § 877 (2000). Substantial evidence “means evidence which is substantial, that is, affording a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred.”
Touby v. United States, 500 U.S. 160 (1991). “§ 507, 21 U. S. C. § 877 . It takes time to comply with these procedural requirements.”
Impact Energy Resources, LLC v. Salazar, 693 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2012). “” 21 U.S.C. § 877 . The court, deciding the Bennett finality framework applied, explicitly acknowledged the difference in wording between the Controlled Substances Act and the APA, but “s[aw] no reason .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.