George Harms Construction Co., Inc. v. Chao

How courts have described this case

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

• determining that after Mead, agency interpretations are entitled to Chevron deference if the Mead “force of law” test is met
• finding error due to mail-handling procedure excusable when procedures had been reliable for six years and \loss of the citations was an unforeseeable human error beyond [company's] reasonable control\
• \We recognize that we may reevaluate a precedent in light of intervening authority even without en banc consideration.\
• “We recognize that we may reevaluate a precedent in light of intervening authority even without en banc consideration.”
• “We recognize that we may reevaluate a precedent in light of intervening authority even without en banc consideration.”
• “Because the Pioneer factors of good faith, prejudice, efficient judicial administration, and control all weigh in favor of [the movant], it has sufficiently shown ‘excusable neglect’ ... .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).