Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 859 P.2d 1143 (Or. 1993) [1] was a case in which the Oregon Supreme Court established a binding methodological regime for conducting statutory interpretation. The case was unique in its application of stare decisis principles to interpretive methodology, mandating a specific ...
The Supreme Court ruled in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), that courts must defer to the authority of an administrative agency's interpretation of a statute whenever both the intent of Congress was ambiguous and the agency's interpretation is reasonable or permissible.
The court used the soft plain meaning rule to interpret the statute in this case. Justice David Josiah Brewer made a principle of statutory construction that "It is a familiar rule, that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers."
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that set forth the legal test used when U.S. federal courts must defer to a government agency's interpretation of a law or statute. [1]
Arkansas Supreme Court: "When reviewing issues of statutory interpretation, we keep in mind that the first rule in considering the meaning and effect of a statute is to construe it just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language. When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, there is ...
Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975), was a statutory interpretation case in the Supreme Court of the United States. [1] Although one commentator characterizes the case's implications as meaning "[t]he president cannot frustrate the will of Congress by killing a program through impoundment," [2] the Court majority itself made no categorical constitutional pronouncement about ...
Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, joined by Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. [9] The Court held that a "claim accrues when the plaintiff has the right to assert it in court—and in the case of the [Administrative Procedure Act], that is when the plaintiff is injured by final agency ...
Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that an administrative agency's interpretative rules deserve deference according to their persuasiveness. The court adopted a case-by-case test, the Skidmore deference, which considers the rulings, interpretations, and opinions of the administrator ...