Supreme Court· 6/18/2012

Christopher v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.

Citations

132 S. Ct. 2156
183 L. Ed. 2d 153
2012 U.S. LEXIS 4657
567 U.S. 142

Oral argument

Argued
63 min recording
Listen

Source: CourtListener oral-argument corpus (CC0).

How courts have described this case

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

holding that an agency announcement of an interpretation preceded by a very lengthy period with no interpretation indicates agency considered prior practice lawful
holding that agency’s interpretation controls unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation
holding that 5 agencies must provide “fair warning of the conduct a regulation prohibits or requires”
holding that agencies must provide “fair warning of the conduct a regulation prohibits or requires”
holding that Auer deference is “unwarranted” where to hold otherwise “would seriously undermine the principle that agencies should provide regulated parties ‘fair warning of the conduct [a regulation] prohibits or requires’”
concluding that, because the listed examples were preceded by the term “including,” they were “merely non-exhaustive examples” that did not limit the scope of the statutory provision

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Alito, Auto, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

401 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

32 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Christopher v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.

4 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.