Salzman v. Commissioner

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, in certain contexts, a regulatory exemption can be \extended\ notwithstanding a lack of temporal continuity between the initial exemption and its extension
• considering “variation[s] of the very term in dispute” in neighboring subparagraphs to resolve a term’s meaning
• “declin[ing] to consider whether any deference might be due” under Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), because “the government [was] not invoking Chevron”
• denying mo- tions that were not necessary for the opinion as moot
• “[T]he government is not invoking Chev- ron. We therefore decline to consider whether any deference might be due its regulation.”
• “[T]he government is not invoking Chevron. We therefore decline to consider whether any deference might be due its regula- tion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).