Martin v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission

How courts have described this case

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

• allocating power “authoritatively to interpret . . . regulations” after assessing “available indicia of legislative intent”
• “some weight” is due to informal interpretations though not “the same deference as norms that derive from the exercise of... delegated lawmaking powers”
• “It is well established ‘that an agency’s construction of its own regulations is entitled to substantial deference.’ ”
• an agency’s interpretation of a regulation developed in an adjudication is entitled to deference
• “ ‘Litigating positions’ are not entitled to deference when they are merely appellate counsel’s ‘post hoc rationalizations’ for agency action, advanced for the first time in the reviewing court.”
• interpretive rules are not entitled to Chevron deference

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).