Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 California opinions name it 3 courts 1999–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of Equalizationgreen2 sentences2018A court assessing the value of an interpretation must consider a complex of factors material to the substantive legal issue before it, the particular agency offering the interpretation, and the comparative weight the factors ought in reason to command." ( Id . at p. 12, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 960 P.2d 1031 .) Judicial deference is more likely where " 'the agency has expertise and technical knowledge, especially where the legal text to be interpreted is technical, obscure, complex, open-ended, or entwined with issues of fact, policy, and discretion.' " ( Ibid . ) The matters we review here fit this 2018A court assessing the value of an interpretation must consider a complex of factors material to the substantive legal issue before it, the particular agency offering the interpretation, and the comparative weight the factors ought in reason to command." ( Id . at p. 12, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 960 P.2d 1031 .) Judicial deference is more likely where " 'the agency has expertise and technical knowledge, especially where the legal text to be interpreted is technical, obscure, complex, open-ended, or entwined with issues of fact, policy, and discretion.' " ( Ibid . ) The matters we review here fit this | 4 | 12 |
Diablo Valley College Faculty Senate v. Contra Costa Community College Districtgreen2 sentences2017A court is more likely to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation than to its interpretation of a statute, since the agency is likely to be intimately familiar with regulations it authored and sensitive to the practical implications of one interpretation over another.’ [Citation.] The second group of factors . . .—those suggesting the agency’s interpretation is likely to be correct—includes indications of careful consideration by senior agency officials (‘an interpretation of a statute contained in a regulation adopted after public notice and comment is more deserving of defe 2017A court is more likely to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation than to its interpretation of a statute, since the agency is likely to be intimately familiar with regulations it authored and sensitive to the practical implications of one interpretation over another.’ [Citation.] The second group of factors . . .—those suggesting the agency’s interpretation is likely to be correct—includes indications of careful consideration by senior agency officials (‘an interpretation of a statute contained in a regulation adopted after public notice and comment is more deserving of defe | 1 | 1 |
Wise v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.green2 sentences2000A court assessing the value of an interpretation must consider a complex of factors material to the substantive legal issue before it, the particular agency offering the interpretation, and the comparative weight the factors ought in reason to command.” (Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization, supra, at p. 12.) “ ‘A court is more likely to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation than to its interpretation of a statute, since the agency is likely to be intimately familiar with regulations it authored and sensitive to the practical implications of one interpretati 2000A court assessing the value of an interpretation must consider a complex of factors material to the substantive legal issue before it, the particular agency offering the interpretation, and the comparative weight the factors ought in reason to command.” (Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization, supra, at p. 12.) “ ‘A court is more likely to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation than to its interpretation of a statute, since the agency is likely to be intimately familiar with regulations it authored and sensitive to the practical implications of one interpretati | 1 | 1 |
Pacific Bell v. Public Utilities Commissiongreen2 sentences2000(Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 406, 410-411 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 438 P.2d 801 ]; *1097 Pacific Bell v. Public Utilities Com. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 269, 283 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 910 ] [PUC’s decision on procedural matters will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion or unreasonable interpretation of relevant statute].) 2. 2000(Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 406, 410-411 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 438 P.2d 801 ]; *1097 Pacific Bell v. Public Utilities Com. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 269, 283 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 910 ] [PUC’s decision on procedural matters will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion or unreasonable interpretation of relevant statute].) 2. | 1 | 1 |
Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commissiongreen2 sentences2000(Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 406, 410-411 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 438 P.2d 801 ]; *1097 Pacific Bell v. Public Utilities Com. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 269, 283 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 910 ] [PUC’s decision on procedural matters will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion or unreasonable interpretation of relevant statute].) 2. 2000(Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 406, 410-411 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 438 P.2d 801 ]; *1097 Pacific Bell v. Public Utilities Com. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 269, 283 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 910 ] [PUC’s decision on procedural matters will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion or unreasonable interpretation of relevant statute].) 2. | 1 | 1 |
Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of Equalizationgreen2 sentences2000The foregoing annotation is not binding on this court; rather, the SBE’s “interpretation of the sales and use tax statutes and regulations is subject *11 to independent judicial review.” (Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 338, 349 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 362 ].) “When an agency is merely construing a statute, as in the case of the annotations here, the question of whether judicial deference to the agency’s interpretation is appropriate and, if so, the extent of such deference, is fundamentally situational. [Citation.] Thus, a court must consider complex factor 2000The foregoing annotation is not binding on this court; rather, the SBE’s “interpretation of the sales and use tax statutes and regulations is subject *11 to independent judicial review.” (Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 338, 349 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 362 ].) “When an agency is merely construing a statute, as in the case of the annotations here, the question of whether judicial deference to the agency’s interpretation is appropriate and, if so, the extent of such deference, is fundamentally situational. [Citation.] Thus, a court must consider complex factor | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Company
green
2 sentences2016Yamaha as Clarified by Ramirez Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 785 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 844 , 978 P.2d 2 ] (Ramirez), added a key refinement to the Yamaha framework. 2016Yamaha as Clarified by Ramirez Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 785 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 844 , 978 P.2d 2 ] (Ramirez), added a key refinement to the Yamaha framework. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.