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.
11 California opinions name it 3 courts 1999–2024 3 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 sentences2024Bd. of Optometry (1942) 19 Cal.2d 831, 848 (dis. opn. of Gibson, C.J.).) . . .” (Duncan, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at p. 302 .) 8 with regulations it authored and sensitive to the practical implications of one interpretation over another.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) 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 deference than [one] contained in an advice letter 2016A 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.]" ( Yamaha, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 12 , 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 960 P.2d 1031 .) The second group of factors relevant to assessing the weight due an agency's interpretation "includes indications of careful consideration by senior agency officials ('an interpretation of a statute contained in a regulation | 1 | 8 |
Laisne v. California State Board of Optometrygreen1 sentence2024Bd. of Optometry (1942) 19 Cal.2d 831, 848 (dis. opn. of Gibson, C.J.).) . . .” (Duncan, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at p. 302 .) 8 with regulations it authored and sensitive to the practical implications of one interpretation over another.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) 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 deference than [one] contained in an advice letter | 1 | 1 |
Spanish Speaking Citizens' Foundation, Inc. v. Lowgreen2 sentences2017(Spanish Speaking Citizens’ Foundation, Inc. v. Low (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1214 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 75 ].) 2. 2017(Spanish Speaking Citizens’ Foundation, Inc. v. Low (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1214 .) 2. | 1 | 1 |
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 def | 1 | 1 |
Skidmore v. Swift & Co.green2 sentences1999If an agency has adopted an interpretive rule in accordance with Administrative Procedure Act provisions — which include procedures (e.g., notice to the public of the proposed rule and opportunity for public comment) that enhance the accuracy and reliability of the resulting administrative ‘product’ — that circumstance weighs in favor of judicial deference.” ( Yamaha, supra, 19 Cal.4th at pp. 12-13.) 2 The Legislature has not conferred adjudicatory powers on the Board as the means by which sales and use tax liabilities are determined; instead, the validity of those assessments is settled in ta 1999If an agency has adopted an interpretive rule in accordance with Administrative Procedure Act provisions — which include procedures (e.g., notice to the public of the proposed rule and opportunity for public comment) that enhance the accuracy and reliability of the resulting administrative ‘product’ — that circumstance weighs in favor of judicial deference.” ( Yamaha, supra, 19 Cal.4th at pp. 12-13.) 2 The Legislature has not conferred adjudicatory powers on the Board as the means by which sales and use tax liabilities are determined; instead, the validity of those assessments is settled in ta | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Quackenbush
green
2 sentences2021There, the Court of Appeal declined to defer to the Commissioner’s regulatory interpretation in affirming a mixed judgment that effectively precluded a rollback year refund. ( Quackenbush, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 69, 71-72; ibid. [addressing treatment of loss adjustment expenses under regulation section 2643.6].) The Quackenbush court acknowledged it “must respect the Commissioner’s expertise,” noting this was a Yamaha factor, but found the second group of factors were “less helpful” to the Commissioner. 2021There, the Court of Appeal declined to defer to the Commissioner’s regulatory interpretation in affirming a mixed judgment that effectively precluded a rollback year refund. ( Quackenbush, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 69, 71-72; ibid. [addressing treatment of loss adjustment expenses under regulation section 2643.6].) The Quackenbush court acknowledged it “must respect the Commissioner’s expertise,” noting this was a Yamaha factor, but found the second group of factors were “less helpful” to the Commissioner. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
STATE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL v. Duncan
green
1 sentence2024Bd. of Optometry (1942) 19 Cal.2d 831, 848 (dis. opn. of Gibson, C.J.).) . . .” (Duncan, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at p. 302 .) 8 with regulations it authored and sensitive to the practical implications of one interpretation over another.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) 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 deference than [one] contained in an advice letter | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.