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

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

36 See generally Brief 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 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 starting place for interpreting a statute could be the language associated with statute it self. Missing a demonstrably 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 seek out one cardinal canon before others…. Courts must presume that the legislature states in a statute just what it indicates and means in a statute just what there. ” is said by it).

39 Conn. Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. At 254 (“when the language of the statute are unambiguous, then, this very first canon can also be the very last: ‘judicial inquiry is complete. ’”).

40 In re Geneva Steel 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 current Trends, 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 just just 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 Recent styles 15 (2014).

52 Larry Eig, Cong. Analysis Serv., 97-589, General Principles and trends that are recent2011).

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 would not 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 help Guide To Reading, Interpreting And Applying Statutes naviidte to website, 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 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 for a covered entity, facets become considered include: (i) the type and net price of the accommodation required under this component, bearing in mind the option of tax credits and deductions, and/or outside money; (ii) the entire monetary sources of the center or facilities mixed up in supply of this reasonable accommodation, the amount of individuals used at such center, therefore the impact on costs and resources; (iii) the general monetary sources of the covered entity, the entire size of the company for the covered entity with regards to the wide range of its workers, together with quantity, type and location of their facilities; (iv) the kind of procedure or operations associated with the covered entity, such as the structure, framework and procedures associated with the workforce of these entity, in addition to 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 associated with center, such as the effect on the capability of other employees to execute their duties and also the affect the facility’s ability to conduct company. ”).

Recommended

Free Email Updates
We respect your privacy.

Science

The Cheapest Hosting on the Net!

lifestyle

Bad Credit? No Problem…