Clifford Clark v. Angelica Ramirez

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 presence of some redundancy “is rarely fatal on its own to a statutory reading”
• noting that application of the “whole code canon”9 “rests on a shaky foundation. Appeals to consistency with other areas of the U.S. Code—especially different titles of the Code ‘represent a ... risk of judicially overriding legislative assumptions and policies’”
• presuming “identical words used in different parts of 6 No. 24-2931 the same act are intended to have the same meaning” (citation modified)
• presuming “identical words used in different parts of 6 No. 24-2931 the same act are intended to have the same meaning” (citation modified)
• suggesting those who determine certain terms and benefits of employment may be considered employers
• declining to compare different but related titles of 1 federal law to avoid inconsistency and accepting the language Congress chose 2 when drafting the statute rather than reading “extratextual considerations” into the 3 law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).