Block, SkipCaptcha, apieditor, Automoderated users, Bots, edit, ratelimit-exempt
58,859
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − +
Christensen v. Harris County (view source)
Revision as of 06:08, July 13, 2016
, 06:08, July 13, 2016→top: clean up & uniformity
'''''Christensen v. Harris County''''', 529 U.S. 576 (2000), established the rule that a regulatory [[agency]]'s interpretation, as set forth in an internal guidance memoranda or other means lacking benefits of the rulemaking procedure, does not qualify for the dispositive force described in ''[[Chevron]]''. "Interpretations such as those in ... policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines, all of which lack the force of law--do not warrant ''[[Chevron]]''-style deference." ''Id.'' at 587. ''See also United States v. Mead Corp.'', 533 U.S. 218, 234 (2001).
'''''Christensen v. Harris County''''', 529 U.S. 576 (2000), established the rule that a regulatory [[agency]]'s interpretation, as set forth in an internal guidance memoranda or other means lacking benefits of the rulemaking procedure, does not qualify for the dispositive force described in ''[[Chevron]]''. "Interpretations such as those in ... policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines, all of which lack the force of law--do not warrant ''[[Chevron]]''-style deference." ''Id.'' at 587. ''See also United States v. Mead Corp.'', 533 U.S. 218, 234 (2001).
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]