Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co.

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).