Ruth Chelf v. Prudential Ins. Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• “Where reasonably possible, no portion of the language of a regulation should be treated as surplusage”
• “Where reasonably possible, no portion of the language of a regulation should be treated as surplusage”
• courts give deference to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous regulation if the language can be reasonably so read

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).