Pruitt Corp. v. Georgia Department of Community Health

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that agency’s interpretation of a term contained in an internal manual was not to be afforded deference because the manual was not a duly-enacted statute, rule, or regulation
• holding that agency’s interpretation of a term contained in an internal manual was not to be afforded deference because the manual was not a duly- enacted statute, rule, or regulation
• noting judicial deference that should be afforded an “agency’s interpretation of statutes it is charged with enforcing or administering and the agency’s interpretation of rules and regulations it has enacted to fulfill the function given it by the legislative branch”
• rule or regulation that has “undergone the scrutiny” of notice-and-comment rulemaking may be entitled to deference
• provider that signs a statement of participation that incorporates by reference the Department of Com munity Health’s policy manual enters into a contractual relationship with the department
• courts should defer to an administrative agency’s “interpretation of statutes it is charged with enforcing or administering and the agency’s interpretation of rules and regulations it has enacted to fulfill the function given it by the legislative branch”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).