Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

 Auer v. Robbins ordinarily calls for deference to an agency's interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation, even when that interpretation is advanced in a legal brief, see Chase Bank USA, N. A. v. McCoy, 562 U. S. 195, 210, 131 S. Ct. 871, 178 L. Ed. 2d 716 (2011)); Auer, 519 U. S., at 461-462, 117 S. Ct. 905, 137 L. Ed. 2d 79, this general rule does not apply in all cases. Deference is undoubtedly inappropriate, for example, when the agency's interpretation is “'“plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.”'” Id., at 461, 117 S. Ct. 905, 137 L. Ed. 2d 79 (quoting Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U. S. 332, 359, 109 S. Ct. 1835, 104 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1989)). And deference is likewise unwarranted when there is reason to suspect that the agency's interpretation “does not reflect the agency's fair and considered judgment on the matter in question.” Auer, supra, at 462, 117 S. Ct. 905, 137 L. Ed. 2d 79; see also, e.g., Chase Bank, supra, at 213, 131 S. Ct. 871, 178 L. Ed. 2d 716. This might occur when the agency's interpretation conflicts with a ...

Register or login to access full content