Cameron Jenkins v. Euclid, L.C.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plain meaning rule applies unless the literal application of the statute \produces an outcome that is demonstrably at odds with clearly expressed congressional intent to the contrary\ or when literal application of the statute \produces an absurd result\
• explaining that under the Plain Meaning Rule of statutory interpretation, “a court’s analysis must end with the statute’s plain language” unless ambiguity is present in the statutory text
• “The Court reads and interprets the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure according to their plain meaning.”
• “The general rule is that unless there is some ambiguity in the language of a statute, a court’s analysis must end with the statute’s plain language (the Plain Meaning Rule).”
• “The general rule is that unless there is some ambiguity in the language of the statute, a court’s analysis must end with the statute’s plain language (the Plain Meaning Rule)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).