Chase Bank USA, N. A. v. McCoy

How courts have described this case

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

• indicating that a court defers to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation, even if only advanced in a legal brief, unless “plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation”
• noting that a court’s analysis over the “proper interpretation of’ a regulation “begins with the text of [the] [regulation”
• explaining that the deference granted in Auer was to an agency’s interpretation that was presented in an amicus brief submitted by the agency at the Supreme Court’s invitation
• indicating that a court defers to an agency’s interpretation of its own regula- tion, even if only advanced in a legal brief, unless “plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation”
• acknowledging that “the Official Staff Commentary promulgated by the Board as an interpretation of Regulation Z may warrant deference as a general matter” but, in that case, merely replicated ambiguity in the regulatory text
• deferring to agency's interpretation of its own regulation, advanced in legal brief, because \the interpretation... is consistent with the regulatory text\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).