Supreme Court· 2/19/2002

Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co.

Citations

534 U.S. 438
122 S. Ct. 941
151 L. Ed. 2d 908
2002 U.S. LEXIS 617
70 U.S.L.W. 4127
2002 Daily Journal DAR 1859
2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1538
15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 101
197 A.L.R. Fed. 689
27 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1545
2002 WL 232843

How courts have described this case

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

cautioning courts from assuming that \differing language in ... two subsections\ of the same statute \has the same meaning\ because of a \simple mistake in draftsmanship\
“Floor statements from two Senators cannot amend the clear and unambiguous language of a statute.”
“We construe a regulation in the same manner as we construe a statute, by ascertaining its plain meaning.”
“As in all statutory construction cases, we begin with the language of the statute.”
“As in all statutory 2 The additional four cents received by Mr. Arter apparently results from rounding by the DoD. [ECF 27-1] at 32. 6 construction cases, we begin with the language of the statute.”
if “Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Thomas, Rehnquist, Scaua, Kennedy, Soutee, Ginsburg, Stevens, O'Connor, Breyer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

779 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.