Mora v. Industrial Commission

How courts have described this case

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

• applying Code and cases interpreting same, specifically section 2-616, to determine that amendment of application to name additional respondents after hearing before arbitrator was improper because it worked a prejudicial affect upon substantive rights of respondents
• applying Code and cases interpreting same, specifically section 2 — 616, to determine that amendment of application to name additional respondents after hearing before arbitrator was improper because it worked a prejudicial effect upon substantive rights of respondents
• “It is well established that ‘[t]he rules of statutory construction apply when interpreting an agency regulation.” (Citing Roberto v. Dep’t of Navy, 440 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
• When construing an administrative rule, the court stated “[i]t is a basic tenet of statutory construction that a statute should be construed so that no word or phrase is rendered superfluous or meaningless”
• When construing an administrative rule, the court stated \[i]t is a basic tenet of statutory construction that a statute should be construed so that no word or phrase is rendered superfluous or meaningless\
• discussing amendment of an application for adjustment of claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).