Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that information obtained in response to a FOIA request was a “public disclosure” for purposes of the Consumer Product Safety Act
• noting that “[a]bsent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, [statutory] language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive”
• stating that \the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself\
• noting that where statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the language is regarded as conclusive, unless there is a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary
• cautioning that “the views of a subsequent Congress form a hazardous basis for inferring the intent of an earlier one” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• stating that “the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).