33 Pardo & Lacey, supra note 20, at 510.
36 See generally quick of Amici Curiae nationwide customer Law Center And nationwide Association Of customer Bankruptcy Attorneys, Murphy v. U.S. Dept. Of Education, No. 14-1691 (1st Cir. Oct. 25, 2016).
37 Joseph A. Grundfest & A.C. Pritchard, Statutes With Several Personality Disorders: The Worth Of Ambiguity In Statutory Design And Interpretation, 54 Stan. L. Rev. 627, 628 (2002).
38 Consumer Product protection Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980) (“We start out with the familiar canon of statutory construction that the kick off point for interpreting a statute may be the language for the statute it self. Missing a plainly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be seen as conclusive. ”); Conn. Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253–54 (1992) (“In interpreting a statute a court must always move to one canon that is cardinal others…. Courts must presume that the legislature states in a statute just just what it indicates and means in a statute just just just what there. ” is said by it).
39 Conn. Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. At 254 (“when the language of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon can be the very last: ‘judicial inquiry is complete. ’”).
40 In re Geneva metal Co., 281 F. 3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2002).
41 Grundfest & Pritchard, supra note 37, at 642.
42 Larry Eig, Statutory Interpretation: General Principles and trends that are recent Congressional Research provider, at 4 (2011); see also United Savings Ass’n v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., 484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988); Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 U.S. 504, 528 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring) (talking about exactly how courts additionally may check out the wider body of legislation into that the enactment fits).
43 United Savings Ass’n v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., 484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988).
44 A Gu Writing Ctr. At Geo. U.L. Ctr., at 9, https: //www. Law. Georgetown.edu/academics/academic-programs/legal-writing-scholarship/writing-center/upload/A-Guide-to-Reading-Interpreting-and-Applying-Statutes. Pdf.
46 See generally id.
47 Jacob Scott, Codified Canons while the Common Law of Interpretation, 98 Geo. L.J. 341, 344 (2010).
49 See Hernandez v. Kalinowski, 146 F. 3d 196, 200 (third Cir. 1998).
50 Scott, supra note 47, at 376.
51 See Larry Eig, Cong. Analysis Serv., 97-589, General Principles and trends that are recent (2014).
52 Larry Eig, Cong. Analysis Serv., 97-589, General Principles and current styles (2011).
54 Brunner v. Ny State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp., 831 F. 2d 395, 396 (2nd Cir. 1987); Roe v. Law device (In re Roe), 226 B.R. 258, 274 (N.D. Ala. 1998) (discovering that the debtor failed to establish enough faith that is good claiming undue difficulty underneath the Johnson test).
55 Austin, supra note 12, at 379.
57 Brief for Professor Rafael Pardo as Amicus Curiae, p., Murphy v. U.S. Dept. Of Educ., No. 14-1691 (1st Cir. Oct. 25, 2016).
58 See a help Guide To Reading, Interpreting And Applying Statutes, supra note 44; Scott, supra note 47, at 376.
59 See Brief for Professor Rafael Pardo as Amicus Curiae, p. 11–13, Murphy v. U.S. Dept. Of Educ., No. 14-1691 (1st Cir. Oct examine the link. 25, 2016).
60 11 U.S.C. § 524(m)(1).
64 See Brief for Professor Rafael Pardo as Amicus Curiae, p. 11–13, Murphy v. U.S. Dept. Of Educ., No. 14-1691 (1st Cir. Oct. 25, 2016).
65 34 U.S.C. § 10281(m).
67 Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 174 (2001).
68 united states of america v. E-Gold, Ltd., 550 F. Supp. 2d 82, 93 (D.D.C. 2008).
69 Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. At 174; see Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter, Communities for Great Ore., 515 U.S. 687, 698 (1995); see also Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 140 (1994) (“judges should wait to deal with terms that are statutory surplusage in virtually any environment).
70 See Gregory S. Crespi, effectiveness Rejected: Evaluating Undue Hardship Claims beneath the Us americans with Disabilities Act, 26 Tulsa L. R. 1, 2–3 (1990).
71 42 U.S. C § 12112.
72 29 CRF 1630.2.
73 Id. (“In determining whether an accommodation would impose an undue difficulty on a covered entity, factors become considered include: (i) the character and web price of the accommodation needed under this component, bearing in mind the accessibility to taxation credits and deductions, and/or outside funding; (ii) the general monetary sources of the facility or facilities active in the supply of this reasonable accommodation, the amount of individuals used at such center, while the impact on expenses and resources; (iii) the general economic sourced elements of the covered entity, the entire size of the business enterprise associated with the covered entity with regards to the wide range of its workers, together with number, kind and location of its facilities; (iv) the kind of procedure or operations for the covered entity, like the structure, framework and procedures associated with workforce of these entity, and also the geographical separateness and administrative or financial relationship associated with center or facilities at issue towards the covered entity; and (v) The effect associated with the accommodation upon the procedure associated with the center, such as the effect on the capability of other employees to execute their duties additionally the effect on the facility’s ability to conduct business. ”).
Leave a Reply