Apelu v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that an agency can adopt “only such rules as are authorized by and consistent with its statutory authority” (citation omitted)
• explaining that where statute does not define key term, we must apply “common, ordinary meaning unless a contrary meaning is apparent”
• explaining that courts typically look first to a dictionary definition to determine the common meaning of an undefined term
• explaining that a rule will prove facially invalid if it “runs counter to the general objectives of the statute”
• explaining that where statute does not define key term, we must apply “common, ordinary meaning unless a contrary meaning is apparent”
• noting that when statute does not define term, courts apply its common, ordinary meaning unless different meaning is implied from statute’s language and “look first” to term’s dictionary definition

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).