Mosley v. Super. Ct.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that if the meaning of regulation is clear, that ends the matter
• concluding that if the meaning of regulation is clear, that ends the matter
• noting that a statute is ambiguous when “the application of the ordinary meaning of the words and rules of construction ... fails to answer the question at issue” (citing Bell Atl. Tel. Cos. v. FCC, 131 F.3d 1044, 1047 (D.C.Cir.1997
• stating that the plain meaning of a regulation is controlling
• \[A] regulation is not ambiguous merely because the Secretary takes a litigation position that contradicts the plain language of the regulation.\
• “If the meaning of the regulation is clear from its language, then that is ‘the end of the matter.’ ” (quoting Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115, 120, 115 S.Ct. 552, 130 L.Ed.2d 462 (1994))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).