Niz-Chavez v. Garland

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a statute’s requirement for “a” notice of appearance specifically required a single document, rather than multiple documents
• explaining that a singular term may be pluralized to “apply [a statute] to multiple persons, parties, or things”
• noting that “when interpreting this or any statute, we do not aim for ‘literal’ interpretations,” instead, “textual and contextual clues persuade us of [a] statute’s ordinary meaning”
• concluding otherwise because, unlike here, the indefinite article “a” preceded the word “notice”
• “At one level, today’s dispute may seem semantic, focused on a single word, a small one at that.”
• “When called on to resolve a dispute over a statute’s meaning, this Court normally seeks to afford the law’s terms their ordinary meaning at the time Congress adopted them”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Niz-Chavez v. Garland

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• Niz-Chavez v. Garland
  Supreme Court· 2021-04-29· cited 1×
• Niz-Chavez v. Garland
  Supreme Court· 2021-04-30