Under Barrett V Chevron - Judgment Search Results
Chandris, Inc. Vs. Latsis
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-14-1995
developments in the Fifth Circuit's Jones Act jurisprudence added a strictly temporal gloss to the Jones Act inquiry. Under Barrett v. Chevron, U. S. A., Inc., supra, if an employee's regular duties require him to divide his time between vessel
Harbor Tug and Barge Co. Vs. Papai
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-12-1997
position conflicted with that of the Fifth Circuit (en bane) and of a Third Circuit panel. Ibid. (citing Barrett v. Chevron, U. S. A., Inc., 781 F. 2d 1067 (CA5 1986) (en bane); Reeves v. Mobile Dredging & Pumping … need to examine the nature of an employee's duties with prior employers. See also id., at 367 ("Since Barrett [v. Chevron, U. S. A., Inc., 781 F. 2d 1067 (CA5 1986) (en bane)], the Fifth Circuit consistently has analyzed
New York Vs. Ferc
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
gas from out-of-state producers was sold to independent distributing companies for resale to local consumers, Missouri ex rel. Barrett v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 265 U. S. 298 , 309 (1924). 3The FPA was enacted as Title II … subject to state jurisdiction therefore represents a statutorily permissible policy choice to which we must also defer under Chevron [0. S. A. Inc. 10 See FPC v. Florida Power & Light Co., 404 U. S. 453 (1972);
18-section briefs on any result in this list
Pauley Vs. Bethenergy Mines, Inc.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-24-1991
agency, the extent of judicial review of the agency's policy determinations is limited. Cf. Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett, 494 U. S. 638 , 494 U. S. 649 (1990) ("A precondition to deference under Chevron is a
Arlington Vs. Fcc
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-20-2013
a sound interpretive approach should yield none. 3 The dissent’s reliance on dicta in Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett, , see post, at 8-9, is misplaced. In that case, the Department of Labor had interpreted a statute … the Commission lacked authority to interpret §332(c)(7)(B)’s limitations. The Court of Appeals, relying on Circuit precedent holding that Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 , applies to an
United States Vs. Mead Corp.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Nov-08-2000
with the Secretary's rulings on "valuation, rate of duty, marking, restricted mer- 14 Cf. Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett, 494 U. S. 638 , 649-650 (1990) (although Congress required the Secretary of Labor to promulgate standards implementing … that ruling letters should not be treated like Customs regulations, which receive the highest level of deference under Chevron US. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 , because they are not
Gonzales Vs. Oregon
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
of ‘this subchapter.’ ” 527 U. S., at 514 (Breyer, J., dissenting). See also Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett, 494 U. S. 638 , 649-650 (1990) (holding that a delegation of authority to promulgate motor vehicle safety … deference. Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S. 452 , 461-463. So may an interpretation of an ambiguous statute, Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 , 842-845, but only
Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. Vs. Metrophones Telecommunica ...
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-17-2007
to draw support from Alexander v. Sandoval , 532 U. S. 275 (2001), and Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett , 494 U. S. 638 (1990), which, Global Crossing says, hold that an agency cannot determine through regulation … “unreasonable practice” prohibition. Pp. 7-9. (b) The FCC’s §201(b) “unreasonable practice” determination is reasonable, and thus lawful. See Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. , 467 U. S. 837 , 843-844. It
Allied-signal, Inc. Vs. Director, Div. of Taxation
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-15-1992
Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Director, Div. of Taxation - 504 U.S. 768 (1992) OCTOBER TERM, 1991 Syllabus ALLIED-SIGNAL, INC., AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO … Corp. et al. by Timothy B. Dyk and Edward K. Bilich; for Chevron Corp. by Toni Rembe, Jeffrey M. Vesely, and C. Douglas Floyd; and … District of Columbia, Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General of Florida, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General of Georgia, Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson, Attorney General of Guam, Warren Price III, Attorney General of Hawaii, Linley E. Pearson, Attorney General of Indiana,
Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. Vs. Commissioner
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-21-1998
the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress." Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. … of money"the fact that" '[a] dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow,'" D. Herwitz & M. Barrett, Accounting for Lawyers 221 (2d ed. 1997). Section 1023 of the 1986 Act amended the Code to require … Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v. Commissioner - 523 U.S. 382 (1998) OCTOBER TERM, 1997 Syllabus ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
Hover bars for counts · use +/− or drag to zoom · click a bar to filter by year
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free