Matter of Vidal v. Taneja

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that under § 102(5) a party is not limited to mutually exclusive choice
• “As a general matter of statutory-construction, a term in a statute is not ambiguous merely because it is broad in scope.”
• “In employing intentionally broad language, Congress avoids the necessity of spelling out in advance every contingency to which a statute could apply.”
• “Courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.”
• “Courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.”
• “When the words of a statute are unambiguous . . . judicial inquiry is complete.” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).