In Re Applus Technical Services USA Inc. and Victor Castro v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing competitor’s privilege as “an affirmative defense to the tort of intentional interference with prospective business advantage”
• finding that the Act does not violate the federal commerce clause
• stating if there is a reasonable debate about a statute’s meaning, the court will give deference to the retirement board’s interpretation, though its interpretation is not binding
• reviewing court is not bound by agency’s interpretation of statute, but its review of the administrative decision in this respect is “significantly deferential to an agency’s experience in construing and applying the statutes that it administers”
• while Board’s interpretation of Act’s provisions is not binding on reviewing court, it “will be given deference” where there is reasonable debate
• “The construction of a statute by an agency charged with its administration will be given deference where there is a reasonable debate about the meaning of the statute”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).