Dickenson-Russell Coal Company v. Secretary of Labor

How courts have described this case

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

• refusing to afford Auer deference where the language of the regulation at issue was “not susceptible to more than one plausible reading” (citation and quotation marks omitted)
• observing that a rule holding MSHA inspectors principally responsible for mine safety “would be manifestly unreasonable and unjustified in light of the clear Congressional purpose to ensure that the primary responsibility for safety remains with the mine owners and miners”
• “The plain meaning of language in a regulation governs unless that meaning would lead to absurd results.” (quoting Forest Watch v. U.S. Forest Serv., 410 F.3d 115, 117 (2d Cir. 2005))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).