Colorado ex rel. Colorado State Banking Board v. Resolution Trust Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
1DissentEbel, Circuit Judge
I must respectfully dissent. After applying the traditional rules of statutory construction to 12 U.S.C. § 1823(k)(l) & (k)(4), I find these statutory provisions to be unambiguous and the RTC’s interpretation of them to be incorrect. The RTC is not entitled to substantial deference with respect to its interpretation. Furthermore, the *949RTC’s interpretation is unacceptable under any standard of review.
Standard of Review
The substantial deference standard of review discussed in Chevron, U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984), and its…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-FonsecaSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- National Labor Relations Board v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 23Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.