Clark v. Uebersee Finanz-Korp., AG

How courts have described this case

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

• advising that courts should not adopt an interpretation of statutory language that would “run counter to the policy of the Act and be disruptive of its purpose ... [when] dealing with hasty legislation which Congress did not stop to perfect as an integrated whole”
• noting that court should not adopt an interpretation of statutory language that would \run counter to the policy of the Act and be disruptive of its purpose ... [when] dealing with hasty legislation that Congress did not stop to perfect as an integrated whole.\
• advising that courts should not adopt an interpretation of statutory language that would \run counter to the policy of the Act and be disruptive of its purpose . . . [when] dealing with hasty legislation which Congress did not stop to perfect as an integrated whole\
• noting that court should not adopt an interpretation of statutory language that would “run counter to the policy of the Act and be disruptive of its purpose ... [when] dealing with hasty legislation that Congress did not stop to perfect as an integrated whole.”
• advising that courts should not adopt an interpretation of stat- utory language that would “run counter to the policy of the Act and be disruptive of its purpose . . . [when] dealing with hasty legislation which Congress did not stop to perfect as an integrated whole”
• \We are dealing with hasty legislation which Congress did not stop to perfect as an integrated whole.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).