N.C. State Conf. of the NAACP v. Alamance Cnty.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the inclusion of limiting language in one subsection but not another subsection usually yields the inference that the limitation does not apply to the latter subsection
• rejecting “but-for” test because the test’s scope is over-inclusive, but making no mention of factual delineations
• defining “nexus” as “[a] connection or link, often a causal one”
• defining “nexus” as “[a] connection or link, often a causal one”
• “‘[A]s the result of . . .’ language . . . plainly suggests causation.”
• “[I]f Congress’ coverage decisions are mistaken as a matter of policy, it is for Congress to change them. We should not legislate for them.” (quoting Herb’s Welding, Inc. v. Gray, 470 U.S. 414, 427 (1985))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).