Perez v. United States

The Court held that the Food and Drug Administration's denial of authorization to market flavored electronic cigarette products was not arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The Court held that, after a defendant has removed a case to federal court, a plaintiff can amend the complaint to omit all references to federal law and have the case sent back to state court.

The Court held that the Fair Credit Reporting Act unequivocally and unambiguously waives the sovereign immunity of the United States.

The Court held that in a qui tam action filed under the False Claims Act, the United States may move to dismiss whenever it has intervened – whether during the seal period or later on.

The Court held that the False Claims Act's scienter element, which requires a defendant to "knowingly" give a "false" claim to the government, refers to a defendant's knowledge and subjective beliefs, not refer to what an objectively reasonable person may have known or believed.

The Court ruled unanimously that the FTC had misused its authority granted by the Federal Trade Commission Act under Section 13(b) to obtain monetary relief.

The Court ruled that the statute of limitations begins one year after the alleged FDCPA violation took place, not one year after the violation was discovered by the plaintiff.

The court held that a business engaged in only nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings is not a "debt collector" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, except for the limited purpose of Section 1692f(6).

The Court held that a company is not a "debt collector" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) if it purchased that debt and then attempts to collect from the debtor.

The Court held that the Truth in Lending Act does not require borrowers to file a lawsuit to rescind loans and that sending written notice is sufficient to effectuate rescission.

The Court held that a statutory private right of action under the Lanham Act is not precluded by regulatory provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

The court held that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act did not modify Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1).

The court held that to establish a violation of 12 U.S.C. § 2607(b), a plaintiff must demonstrate that a charge for settlement services was divided between two or more persons.

The court held that a generic manufacturer may employ the counterclaim provision of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 to force correction of a use code that inaccurately describes the brand's patent as covering a particular method of using a drug.

The court held that federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over private suits arising under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

The court held that, before August 2009, Regulation Z did not require banks to provide credit-card holders with a change-in-terms notice before raising their interest rate after a delinquency or default.

The court held that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act cannot be used by a city to collect damages against out-of-state internet vendors who fail to pay city cigarette taxes.

The court held that where "willfulness" is a statutory condition of civil liability, it generally includes both knowing violations of a standard and reckless violations.

The Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress's 1995 amendment of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) left unaltered the prior minimum and maximum limits of $100 and $1,000 prescribed for statutory damages awarded to plaintiffs in TILA violation suits involving personal-property loans.

The Court held that the discovery rule (that a federal statute of limitations begins to run when a party knows or has reason to know that she was injured) does not apply to the two-year statute of limitations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Court ruled that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act did not give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to regulate tobacco products as "drugs" or "devices."

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that banks had prudential standing to challenge regulations that permitted credit unions to enroll unaffiliated members.

In a case over insanitary, vermin-contaminated food warehouses, the Court held that a company's chief executive officer may be criminally liable for food contamination in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.· AI-written

The Court held that "imitation jam", so labeled, was not a "misbranded" product under § 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, 21 U.S.C. § 343, even though it did not meet federal regulations for being fruit jam.

The Court allowed prosecution of criminals for income tax evasion notwithstanding the Fifth Amendment.