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 = _
i0
Previous ,
Next ,
Return to Index