Citation network
Christensen Vs. Harris County
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 23, 2000
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Christensen v. HarrisSearch
-
County - 529 U.S. 576 (2000) October Term, 1999 Syllabus Christensen Et Al. V. HarrisSearch
-
a thing to be done in a particular mode, it includes a negative of any other mode, Raleigh & Gaston R. Co. v. ReidSearch
-
the employee has agreed in advance to such a practice is not entitled to deference under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
but only to the extent that they are persuasive, Skidmore v. SwiftSearch
-
be included in an agreement. And deference to an agency's interpretation of its regulation is warranted under Auer v. RobbinsSearch
-
political subdivisions, however, did not feel the full force of this latter extension until our decision in Garcia v. SanSearch
-
Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528 (1985), which overruled our holding in National League of Cities v. UserySearch
-
subdivisions, passing the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1985, Pub. L. 99-150, 99 Stat. 787. See generally Moreau v. KlevenhagenSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
judgment for petitioners and entering a declaratory judgment that the county's policy violated the FLSA. Moreau v. HarrisSearch
-
did not speak to the issue and thus did not prohibit the county from implementing its compensatory time policy. Moreau v. HarrisSearch
-
to use compensatory time, subject to the limitation regarding undue disruptions 2 Compare, e. g., Collins v. LobdellSearch
-
F.3d 1124 , 1129-1130 (CA9 1999) (upholding employer's policy compelling compensatory time use), with Heaton v. MooreSearch
-
CA8 1994) (striking down policy compelling compensatory time use), cert. denied sub nom. Schriro v. HeatonSearch
-
Raleigh & Gaston R. Co. v. ReidSearch
-
work. An employer may tell the employee to take off an afternoon, a day, or even an entire week. Cf. Barrentine v. Arkansas-BestSearch
-
they argue that the agency opinion letter is entitled to deference under our decision in Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
guidelines, all of which lack the force of lawdo not warrant Chevron-style deference. See, e. g., Reno v. KoraySearch
-
EEOC v. ArabianSearch
-
Martin v. OccupationalSearch
-
under our decision in Skidmore v. SwiftSearch
-
that the agency's opinion letter interpreting the regulation should be given deference under our decision in Auer v. RobbinsSearch
-
that an agency's interpretation of its own regulation is entitled to deference. Id., at 461. See also Bowles v. SeminoleSearch
-
see Skidmore v. SwiftSearch
-
authoritative effect. See EEOC v. ArabianSearch
-
b)(A). That era came to an end with our watershed decision in Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
Id., at 843, quoting Morton v. RuizSearch
-
to agency regulations, but to authoritative agency positions set forth in a variety of other formats. See, e. g., INS v. Aguirre-AguirreSearch
-
NationsBank of N. c., N. A. v. VariableSearch
-
Pen sion Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTVSearch
-
Young v. CommunitySearch
-
Telecommunications Corp. v. AmericanSearch
-
advanced by an agency seeking to defend past agency action against attack, Bowen v. GeorgetownSearch
-
petitioners refer in a single sentence to an argument made by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Heaton v. MooreSearch
-
F. 3d 1176 (1994) (rejecting compelled-use policy absent agreement to that effect), cert. denied sub nom. Schriro v. HeatonSearch
-
was anything but thoroughly considered and consistently observed, it unquestionably merits our respect. See Skidmore v. SwiftSearch
-
and that would 2 I should add that I fully agree with JUSTICE BREYER'S comments on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
agency view that warrants deference under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
at 590 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment). But I do not object to the majority's citing Skidmore v. SwiftSearch
-
see also Martin v. OccupationalSearch
-
Syllabus Christensen Et Al. V. HarrisSearch
-
Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
Skidmore v. SwiftSearch
-
Garcia v. SanSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial