Levy v. Sterling Holding Co., LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that in determining whether agency regulation applies retroactively, a court should consider “(1) whether the text of the old regulation was ambiguous; (2) whether the new regulation resolved, or at least attempted to resolve, that ambiguity; (3
• finding these factors “particularly important” for “determining whether a new regulation merely ‘clarifies’ existing law”
• explaining that “where a new rule constitutes a clarification – rather than a substantive change – of the law as it existed beforehand, the application of that new rule to pre-promulgation conduct necessarily does not have an impermissible retroactive 34 effect”
• explaining that in the prior case “we struggled to divine their applicability to the instant fact pattern. . . . [and] repeatedly noted the lack of clear guidance in the text or elsewhere regarding whether and to what extent reclassifications fell within the Rule’s scope”
• “We see no reason why these principles should not apply equally to the interpretation of a regulation.”
• “[0]ne could posit that quite the opposite was the case— that the new language was fashioned to clarify the ambiguity made apparent by the caselaw.” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).