33 Pardo & Lacey, supra note 20, at 510.

33 Pardo & Lacey, <em>supra</em> note 20, at 510.

36 See generally quick of Amici Curiae nationwide customer Law Center And nationwide Association Of customer Bankruptcy Attorneys, Murphy https://speedyloan.net/installment-loans-ia 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 Worthiness 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 could be the language associated with statute it self. Missing an obviously expressed intention that is legislative 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 a legislature states in a statute just exactly what it indicates and means in a statute exactly exactly just what it says there. ”).

39 Conn. Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. At 254 (“when the text of the statute are unambiguous, then, this very very very first canon can also be the final: ‘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 human 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 additionally the Common Law of Interpretation, 98 Geo. L.J. 341, 344 (2010).

49 See Hernandez v. Kalinowski, 146 F. 3d 196, 200 (3rd Cir. 1998).

50 Scott, supra note 47, at 376.

51 See Larry Eig, Cong. Analysis Serv., 97-589, General Principles and current styles 15 (2014).

52 Larry Eig, Cong. Analysis Serv., 97-589, General Principles and current styles (2011).

54 Brunner v. Nyc State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp., 831 F. 2d 395, 396 (2nd Cir. 1987); Roe v. Law product (In re Roe), 226 B.R. 258, 274 (N.D. Ala. 1998) (discovering that the debtor failed to establish adequate good faith in 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 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. 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 take care of statutory terms as surplusage in almost any environment).

70 See Gregory S. Crespi, effectiveness Rejected: Evaluating Undue Hardship Claims underneath the People in the us 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, facets become considered include: (i) the type and net price of the accommodation required under this component, considering the option of income tax credits and deductions, and/or outside money; (ii) the general economic sourced elements of the center or facilities active in the supply associated with reasonable accommodation, how many people employed at such center, while the influence on costs and resources; (iii) the general economic sources of the covered entity, the entire size of the company associated with covered entity with regards to the wide range of its workers, plus the quantity, kind and location of their facilities; (iv) the sort of procedure or operations for the covered entity, like the structure, framework and functions regarding the workforce of these entity, as well as the geographical separateness and administrative or financial relationship associated with the center or facilities under consideration towards the covered entity; and (v) The effect associated with accommodation upon the procedure for the center, such as the affect the capability of other workers to do their duties and also the affect the facility’s ability to conduct company. ”).

Comments are closed.