Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n v. District of Columbia

D.C. Circuit

Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n v. District of Columbia

173 F. App'x 3

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 31, 2006

DocketNo. 05-7007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 173 F. App'x 3 (Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n v. District of Columbia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n v. District of Columbia, 173 F. App'x 3 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs and arguments of the parties. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the ease be remanded to the district court for reconsideration in light of Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass’n v. Rowe, 429 F.3d 294 (1st Cir.2005). See Baker v. District of Columbia, 326 F.3d 1302, 1308 (D.C.Cir. 2003) (“court will generally remand issues of collateral estoppel to the district court when they are raised for the first time on appeal”). On remand, the district court should determine the extent to which Rowe precludes the appellee from litigating the validity of Title II of the AccessRx Act of 2004, D.C. Code § 48-831.01 et seq. (Supp.2005), and, to the extent it is not precluded, whether that decision has any effect upon the appellee’s likelihood of success on the merits of its case.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs and arguments of the parties. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the ease be remanded to the district court for reconsideration in light of Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass’n v. Rowe, 429 F.3d 294 (1st Cir.2005). See Baker v. District of Columbia, 326 F.3d 1302, 1308 (D.C.Cir. 2003) (“court will generally remand issues of collateral estoppel to the district court when they are raised for the first time on appeal”). On remand, the district court should determine the extent to which Rowe precludes the appellee from litigating the validity of Title II of the AccessRx Act of 2004, D.C. Code § 48-831.01 et seq. (Supp.2005), and, to the extent it is not precluded, whether that decision has any effect upon the appellee’s likelihood of success on the merits of its case.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 F. App'x 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pharmaceutical-care-management-assn-v-district-of-columbia-cadc-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack