Andrepont v. Murphy Exploration and Production Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Circuits have “rejected the Ninth Circuit’s ‘legislative intent’ approach, . . . [and] conclud[ed] that one of section 928(b
• upholding the denial of fees under § 928(b) where an informal hearing was held and the employer accepted the recommendation from the informal process
• “[W]hen a statute speaks with clarity to an issue[,] judicial inquiry into the statute’s meaning, in all but the most extraordinary circumstance, is finished.” (citation omitted)
• “[B]ased on the plain text of Section 928(b) . . . fee-shifting is unavailable here . . . . [Claimant’s] policy arguments are therefore best addressed to Congress, not the courts.”
• “[T]he plain language . . . requires that an employer must refuse to accept the informal recommendation before attorneys’ fees are shifted”; “[W]e [cannot] elevate the purposes of the statute above the plain text reading.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).