Day v. Idaho Transportation Department

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that even “[s]ubsequent legislation which declares the intent of an earlier law is not, of course, conclusive in determining what the previous Congress meant”
• reasoning that “the meaning which a later Congress ascribed” pointed to a conclusion about what an earlier Congress intended to be the scope of FHA insurance
• reasoning that \the meaning which a later Congress ascribed\ pointed to a conclusion about what an earlier Congress intended to be the scope of FHA insurance
• explaining that “[s]ubsequent legislation which declares the intent of an earlier law” is “entitled to weight” but is not “conclusive in determining what the previous Congress meant”
• explaining that “[s]ubsequent legislation which declares the intent of an earlier law” is “entitled to weight” but is not “conclusive in determining what the previous Congress meant”
• upholding application of statutory requirement that occupants of mortgaged housing must be residents as opposed to transients to apartment buildings mortgaged prior to enactment of the statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).