Mahoney v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• describing the consistent-usage canon as “stat[ing] that a ‘word or phrase is presumed to bear the same meaning throughout the text.’” (quoting ANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS § 25, at 170 (2012))
• “The text must be interpreted consistently with its ordinary meaning at the time Congress enacted the statute.”
• Courts “do not consider legislative history when the text is clear. ... When the words of a statute are unambiguous, ... judicial inquiry is complete.”
• “To the extent that legislative history is useful at all in statutory interpretation, ‘we do not consider legislative his- tory when the text is clear.’” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).