42 U.S.C. § 257a
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1973–2002 · leading case: United States v. Maurice W. Rosenberg, M.D., 515 F.2d 190 (9th Cir. 1975).
United States v. Maurice W. Rosenberg, M.D., 515 F.2d 190 (9th Cir. 1975). “The majority’s argument that Title I, section 4 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 257a, which focuses on the development of standards for medical treatment of narcotics addicts, stands as evidence that Congress intended that the general criminal penalties of section 841 should apply to…”
United States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122 (1975). “” 21 Congress’ solution to this problem is found in § 4 of Title I of the 1970 Act, 42 U. S. C. § 257a. That section requires the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, after consultation with the Attorney General and national addict treatment organizations, to “determine…”
Oregon v. Ashcroft, 192 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (D. Or. 2002). “For example, in section 4 of Title I of the 1970 CSA, 42 U.S.C. § 257a, Congress expressly required the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, after consultation with the Attorney General and national addict treatment organizations, to "determine the appropriate methods of…”
United States v. Thomas W. Moore, Jr., 505 F.2d 426 (D.C. Cir. 1975). “42 U.S.C. § 257a (1970). . The Government also relies, by way of judicial authority, on three decisions in other circuits in conflict with our holding here.”
United States v. Raymond Moore, 486 F.2d 1139 (D.C. Cir. 1973). “42 U.S.C. § 257a (1970). See 36 Fed. Reg.”
Luna v. Harris, 666 F. Supp. 33 (E.D.N.Y 1987). “1241 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 257a). Plaintiff, initially proceeding pro se, instituted an action against the Program for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.”
Am. Pharm. Ass'n v. Weinberger, 377 F. Supp. 824 (D.D.C. 1974). “” (42 U.S.C. § 257a) 3 With respect to -plaintiffs’ contention that the regulations in question constitute arbitrary and capricious action not supported by the administrative record, defendants note what they argue is “ample evidence” to support the regulation’s restrictions on…”
Cushing v. Moore, 783 F. Supp. 727 (N.D.N.Y. 1992). “The enabling legislation, according to Luna , actually consists of two Congressional acts: the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, 42 U.S.C. § 257a (1982) (“the 1970 Act”), and the Narcotic Addict Treatment Act of 1974, 21 U.”
Luna v. Harris, 888 F.2d 949 (2d Cir. 1989). “narcotic addiction_” See 42 U.S.C. § 257a (1982) (codification of 1970 enactment substituting Secretary of Health and Human Services for Secretary of Health Education and Welfare).”
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.