Succession of Rolling

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that agency interpretation of statute was unreasonable as matter of law
• concluding that agency interpretation of statute was unreasonable as matter of law
• noting that “special competence of the agency was not required” before engaging in de novo judicial review of regulations
• noting that our standard deference to agency interpretation is “based on the agency’s presumed expertise in construing the statute[s] it administers” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• rejecting agency interpretation because it “misapplied accepted interpretive criteria in considering the relevant language in the regulations, its reasoning is logically flawed, and it did not consider the purpose of an interest award”
• rejecting agency interpretation because it “misapplied accepted interpretive criteria in considering the relevant language in the regulations, its reasoning is logically flawed, and it did not consider the purpose of an interest award”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).