Search for: "Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. State" Results 41 - 60 of 301
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
In this case, Lexington Land sued Chevron U.S.A., Inc. for alleged damage to its property arising out of Chevron’s and its predecessor’s oil and gas operations in the Sardine Point Field from 1959 through 1991. [read post]
22 Jul 2008, 9:31 am
" Id. at 46719.Chevron does appear [a lot]:In holding that the Final Rules are ultra vires, the court made no effort to measure the Final Rules against the actual terms of Section 2(b)(2), nor did the court give the USPTO's interpretation of that provision the deference required by Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. [read post]
5 Jul 2024, 1:57 pm by Howard Friedman
The court said in part:The Supreme Court recently held that agencies are no longer entitled to deference pursuant to Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. [read post]
21 Aug 2024, 11:15 am by Daniel R. Levy, Carolyn O. Boucek
Raimondo, 144 S.Ct. 2244, 2261 (2024), where the Court overruled the principle of Chevron deference established in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. [read post]
19 Jan 2024, 12:15 am
  Although commentators have handicapped the case differently, it is possible that the Supreme Court will overturn the deferential standard of judicial review of agency interpretations adopted in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. [read post]
27 Sep 2024, 5:40 am by Jon L. Gelman
Raimondo (2024), which overturned the Chevron doctrine established in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. [read post]
11 Nov 2010, 4:00 am by Alan E. Sherman
Chevron U.S.A., Inc., briefly discussed in a previous post on this site captioned “The Combs v. [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 1:38 pm by Sean Wajert
Chevron U.S.A., Inc., et al., No. 08-61294-CIV-ALTONAGA/Brown (S.D. [read post]
13 Jan 2025, 2:07 pm by Murphy Law Firm Editor
In effect, the Chevron Doctrine delegated lawmaking and statutory interpretation to the fourth branch of government, i.e., the “administrative state. [read post]
15 Jun 2016, 5:57 am by John Jascob
The SEC, in turn, argued that its interpretation was consistent with its JOBS Act mandate and thus satisfied the statutory construction standards enunciated by the Supreme Court in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. [read post]