Questions: 1. I don't understand how the statute of limitations as it is mentioned in the decision actually applies?
2. I don't understand how a reasonable person could accept that doctors are harmed by having to practice medicine. Are they not harmed every day in that case? Could they not, by that crazy notion, theoretically sue any make…
Questions: 1. I don't understand how the statute of limitations as it is mentioned in the decision actually applies?
2. I don't understand how a reasonable person could accept that doctors are harmed by having to practice medicine. Are they not harmed every day in that case? Could they not, by that crazy notion, theoretically sue any maker of any physical object or substance that harms their patients as also harming them?
I’m not quite sure I understand. If a claim isn’t raised within the statute of limitations, it cannot be challenged. The challengers gave two reasons why it shouldn’t apply here, and the majority said, “No, those aren’t reasons here for ignoring the statute of limitations,”
As to your second question, one of the fallout problems of this decision — as with Kacsmaryk’s before — is the breadth of the decision and its ramifications for the FDA and for standing even more broadly.
I don’t know if you’re a lawyer or not, but there is no “standard” statute of limitations. Many laws and rules have different statutes of limitations or other time limits. Those various time limits also start running at different times, depending on what is being timed. Here it is quite complicated and, again, involved multiple arguments by the challengers for why it shouldn’t apply to their challenge, but, there also was a lot else going on in the decision, so I just wrote up a short paragraph explaining that, ultimately, they lost on both of those arguments, so the challenge was untimely. You can always look at the opinion for more.
I am certainly not a lawyer but thank you. While the statute of limitations seems to have "saved the day" on this decision, it seems more like an arbitrary application to get the outcome the court wanted. I don't know enough to be sure, but I can't find anything anywhere about a statute of limitations applying specifically to a government agency that ... Well, not certain what the FDA actually did wrong. Acted wrongly in a way that might cause hypothetical harm to a person at some point in the future? The whole opinion and underlying theory just seems nearly entirely Calvinballed.
Questions: 1. I don't understand how the statute of limitations as it is mentioned in the decision actually applies?
2. I don't understand how a reasonable person could accept that doctors are harmed by having to practice medicine. Are they not harmed every day in that case? Could they not, by that crazy notion, theoretically sue any maker of any physical object or substance that harms their patients as also harming them?
I’m not quite sure I understand. If a claim isn’t raised within the statute of limitations, it cannot be challenged. The challengers gave two reasons why it shouldn’t apply here, and the majority said, “No, those aren’t reasons here for ignoring the statute of limitations,”
As to your second question, one of the fallout problems of this decision — as with Kacsmaryk’s before — is the breadth of the decision and its ramifications for the FDA and for standing even more broadly.
I mean to ask what is the statute of limitations actually applied; is it the standard 5 years?
I don’t know if you’re a lawyer or not, but there is no “standard” statute of limitations. Many laws and rules have different statutes of limitations or other time limits. Those various time limits also start running at different times, depending on what is being timed. Here it is quite complicated and, again, involved multiple arguments by the challengers for why it shouldn’t apply to their challenge, but, there also was a lot else going on in the decision, so I just wrote up a short paragraph explaining that, ultimately, they lost on both of those arguments, so the challenge was untimely. You can always look at the opinion for more.
I am certainly not a lawyer but thank you. While the statute of limitations seems to have "saved the day" on this decision, it seems more like an arbitrary application to get the outcome the court wanted. I don't know enough to be sure, but I can't find anything anywhere about a statute of limitations applying specifically to a government agency that ... Well, not certain what the FDA actually did wrong. Acted wrongly in a way that might cause hypothetical harm to a person at some point in the future? The whole opinion and underlying theory just seems nearly entirely Calvinballed.