Skip to main content
· 1/7/2003

United Technologies Corporation v. United States

Citations

  • 315 F.3d 1320
  • 24 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1868
  • 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 127
  • 2003 WL 42005

How courts have described this case

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

  • explaining that, when Skidmore deference is warranted, a court engages in statutory interpretation and its “analysis proceeds de novo”
  • explaining that, when Skidmore deference is warranted, a court engages in statutory interpretation and its \analysis proceeds de novo\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Mayer, Schall, Dyk

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.