Opert v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that in determining whether the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board had interpreted correctly an operative word in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act “[t]he issue before us is, indeed, one of statutory construction and therefore one of law.”
• “[W]e discern no long-standing or consistent practice by the [agency] to which particular deference would be due.”
• “Because this appears to be a case of first impression, we discern no long-standing or consistent practice by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to which particular deference would be due.”
• “If ... we conclude that ‘the language is subject to more than one interpretation, it is ambiguous, and we resolve that ambiguity by looking to the statute’s legislative history, case law, and statutory purpose.’ ”
• “If . . . we conclude that ‘the language is subject to more than one interpretation, it is ambiguous, and we resolve that ambiguity by looking to the statute's legislative history, case law, and statutory purpose.’”
• “[T]he [C]ourt generally gives considerable weight to the agency’s view.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).