Los v. Edwards

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that agency’s “internally inconsistent” interpretations lacked “the ‘hallmarks of thorough consideration’ ” and declining to afford either Auer or Skidmore deference (citation omitted)
• holding that an agency’s “internally inconsistent” interpretations lacked the “hallmarks of thorough consideration,” therefore failing to warrant either Auer or Skidmore deference
• holding that agency’s “internally inconsistent” interpretations lacked “the ‘hallmarks of thorough consideration’” and declining to afford either Auer or Skidmore deference (citation omitted)
• finding interpretation “lacks any persuasive power” where it “does not provide clear 20 guidance”
• “This dispute centers on [the fiduciary’s] practice of paying its own fees and expenses from the Plan’s assets held in the Wells Fargo account.”
• “CAISI is a fiduciary that paid its own fees from Plan assets, and thus engaged in a prohibited transaction under 29 U.S.C. § 1106(b)(1).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).