Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Supreme Court· 1/14/1946

Markham v. Cabell

Citations

  • 326 U.S. 404
  • 66 S. Ct. 193
  • 90 L. Ed. 165
  • 1945 U.S. LEXIS 1426

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that words should be given their natural and ordinary meaning
  • stating that a law will not be strictly read if such reading “results in the emasculation or deletion of a provision which a less literal reading would preserve.”
  • “0ne guiding principle is that the interpretation of a statute may not cause an absurd result.”
  • quoted in Watt v. Alaska, 451 U.S. 259, 266 n. 9, 101 S.Ct. 1673, 1678 n. 9, 68 L.Ed.2d 80 (1981)
  • “[T]he normal assumption is that where Congress amends only one section of a law, leaving another untouched, the two were designed to function as parts of an integrated whole.”
  • quoted in James Parreco & Son v. District of Columbia Rental Hous. Comm’n, 567 A.2d 43, 46 (D.C.1989)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Burton, Court's, Douglas, Frankfurter, Jackson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

358 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Markham v. Cabell

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.