Matthew Kaylin Iverson v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that if a provision is “clear and unequivocal on [its] face,” there is “no need to resort to . . . legislative history”
• holding effective date statute unconstitutional as applied to veteran who was part of top secret program that prevented him from filing for disability benefits
• finding no need to resort to the legislative history of statutory language that was clear and unequivocal on its face
• finding no need to resort to the legislative history of statutory language that was clear and unequivocal on its face
• “having concluded that the provisions of § 1 are clear and unequivocal on their face, we find no need to resort to the legislative history of the Act”
• “Having concluded that [the statutory provisions] are clear and unequivocal on their face, we find no need to resort to the legislative history of the Act.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).