In re Interest of B.H.R.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that only if holistic analysis of the statutory text “leaves ambiguity&emdash;or, indeed, if it reveals it&emdash;may we turn to extrinsic indicia of legislative intent.”
• recognizing, for purposes of federal labor laws, that employer-paid union “shop steward” provides services that “benefit union and corporation alike”
• noting disagreement among federal courts whether Labor Management Relations Act allows full-time release payments as distinct from paid time off for union duties
• “[i]n analyzing a statutory text, we do not look at its words in isolation.”
• “[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” (quoting Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).