norml02 - Page 16

Page 16 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 C_hristianson v. Colt :Industries Operatin_ Cor___, 486 UoS. 800,
 816 (1988)o While the rule is not absolu_:e_ _'courts should be
 loathe" to revisit their prior decisions '_in the absence of
 extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision
 was 'clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice. ''_
 Id. at 817 (quoting Arizona v_ Caiifornia_ 460 U.S. 605_ 618 no8
 (1983)). Absent a showing of manifest injustice_ panels of this
 court are "bound" by prior panel decisions° Lever Bros. Co._ 981
 F_2d at 1332o Thus, in Building & Construction Trades
 Departments AFL-CIO Vo Martins 961 F.2d 269_ 275 (D.C. Cir.),
 cert. denied_ i13 S.Ct. 323 (1992) _ where a petitioner renewed a
 prior objection to the Labor Secretary's definition of a
 statutory terms the court stated that '_[t]he short answer to this
 objection is that we already approved the definition in [a prior
 appeal] and, consequently_ it wills as the law of the cases
 survive the present challenge."
 In this case, the court largely rejected petitioners' claims
 that "the DEA Administrator's decision [not to reschedule
 marijuana] rests on an improper application of the statutory
 standards and an incorrect determination that petitioners failed
 to meet them." ACT v_ DEA_ 930 Fo2d at 937° The court held:
 contrary to these c!aims_ that "the Administrator's
 interpretation of the statute was in the main acceptable." Ibido
 The sole flaw identified by the court, based on an argument that
 petitioners raised "almost in passing _ (]do at 940) _ involved
 tac_or= considered by the Administrator in
 three of the eight = _

Previous , Next , Return to Index