Yet, Pinson’s pensiveness takes center stage as he writes that the prudential form seems adrift, not anchored in “positive law” like a statute or constitution.
It’s like standing at a crossroads, unsure of which direction Georgia law leans toward.
Should the courts retain their prowess to bestow decision-making to agencies? It’s a tantalizing query that, for now, remains unanswered.
The path to clarity demands “meticulous contemplation,” but with both parties avoiding the topic like the plague, it’s a road less traveled. Still, Justice Pinson teased that the doors might swing open for a more in-depth investigation in an impending case.
The Battle’s Backstory: Diet Supplement Labeling Suit
Taking a step back, we dive into the origins of this legal quagmire. It all commenced in the District of Columbia, where Shawn Smith, the initial plaintiff, resided and bought the disputed products.
Accusing Hi-Tech of pulling the wool over consumers’ eyes, Smith contended that the company’s product labels conveniently omitted that methylsynephrine – an unendorsed drug linked with negative health implications – was an ingredient.
