Exxon Mobil Corp. v. County of Santa Barbara (2001)

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA et al., Defendants and Appellants.

[Modification of opinion (92 Cal.App.4th 1347) with no change in judgment.]

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on October 22, 2001, be modified as follows:

On pages 10 delete the second full paragraph beginning [92 Cal. App. 4th 1357, advance report, 2s par.] with the words "The trial court credited" and ending on page 11 with the citation "(Calderon v. Anderson (1996) 45 Cal. App. 4th 607, 613)" and insert the following paragraph in its place.

The trial court credited McCarthy's declaration, and for good reason: The interpretations and opinions of an agency administrator, while not controlling upon the courts, constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance. (Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 1, 14.) "[B]ecause the agency will often be interpreting a statute within its administrative jurisdiction, it may possess special familiarity with satellite legal and regulatory issues. It is this 'expertise,' expressed as an interpretation (whether in a regulation or less formally, as in the case of the Board's tax annotations), that is the source of the presumptive value of the agency's views." (Id., at p. 11.)