The following excerpt is from Edwards v. McMahon, 834 F.2d 796 (9th Cir. 1987):
The Secretary argues that he can limit corrective payments to current recipients. He contends the district court failed to accord sufficient deference to his interpretation of the statute. The district court held the regulation inconsistent with the statute's language, legislative history, and purpose. Our review is de novo. Native Village of Stevens v. Smith, 770 F.2d 1486, 1487 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1121, 106 S.Ct. 1640, 90 L.Ed.2d 185 (1986).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.