Nevadans for Reprod. Freedom v. Washington

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that to the extent the \'unambiguously expressed intent of Congress'\ is not clear, VA may issue regulations \'based on a permissible construction of that statute'\ (citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984))
• noting that, unless the statute speaks “directly” “to the precise question,” under Chevron deference, “any ensuing [agency] regulation is binding in the courts unless procedurally defective, arbitrary or capricious in substance, or manifestly contrary to the statute” (alteration in original
• the language of 38 C.F.R. § 20.201 properly implemented 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105, and assuming that the [claimant] desired appellate review, meeting the requirement of § 20.201 was not an onerous task
• “Section 7105 does not preclude other requirements for an NOD.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).