Espinosa v. Hill

How courts have described this case

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

• “A statute is ambiguous when there are at least two reasonable interpretations of the text under review.” (citation omitted)
• “A statute is ambiguous when there are at least two reasonable interpretations of the text under review.”
• “A statute is ambiguous when there are at least two reasonable interpretations of the text under review.” (citation omitted)
• “A statute is ambiguous when there are at least two reasonable interpretations of the text under review.” (citation omitted)
• “A statute is ambiguous when there are at least two reasonable interpretations of the text under review.”
• “A statute is ambiguous when there are at least two reasonable interpretations of the text under review.” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).