Dobrova v. Holder

How courts have described this case

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

• “Statutory analysis necessarily begins with the plain meaning of a law’s text and, absent ambiguity, will generally end there.” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)
• “Statutory analysis necessarily begins with the plain meaning of a law’s text and, absent ambiguity, will generally end there.”
• “Statutory analysis necessarily begins with the plain 8 meaning of the law’s text, and, absent ambiguity, will generally 9 end there.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “[T]he present perfect tense can refer either to a time in the indefinite past or a past action that has continuing relevance—that ‘comes up to and touches the present.’”
• “Congress’s use of the present perfect tense—‘has . . . been admitted’--is significant here. The present perfect tense ‘refers to (1) a time in the indefinite 39 past . . ., or (2
• relying on Chicago Manual Style ¶ 5.119 (15th ed. 2003)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).