Lamont Escoe v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where statutory text is “unambiguous, [the Court’s] inquiry begins with the statutory text, and ends there as well”
• recognizing that courts cannot “override Congress’ considered choice by rewriting the words of the statute”
• concluding that policy arguments did not “obscure what the statutory language makes clear”
• stating that where plain language of statute is unambiguous, inquiry “begins with the statutory text, and ends there as well” (citation omitted)
• affirming that our inquiry begins and ends with the statutory text if a provision is unambiguous
• opining that when the plain language is “unambiguous, our inquiry begins with the statutory text, and ends there as well”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).