Supreme Court· 4/29/2021

Niz-Chavez v. Garland

Citations

593 U.S. 155

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).

Judges: Neil Gorsuch

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Niz-Chavez v. Garland

2 other CourtListener records share 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.