Piamba Cortes Ex Rel. Piamba Cortes v. American Airlines, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that because the legislative history of the amended statutory text “is consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the original text,” the amendment “clarifies, rather than effects a substantive change to, existing law”
• noting that a district court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence are reviewed for abuse of discretion
• observing that when “a conflict or ambiguity exist[s] . . . courts view this as an indication that a subsequent amendment is intended to clarify, rather than change, the existing law”
• giving effect to a legislative declaration of an intent to clarify in the face of a prior ambiguity
• \[A]n amendment containing new language may be intended 'to clarify existing law ....' \ (quoting United States v. Sepulveda , 115 F.3d 882 , 885 n.5 (11th Cir. 1997) )
• “[C]oncerns about retroactive application are not implicated when an amendment that takes effect after the initiation of a lawsuit is deemed to clarify . . . rather than effect a substantive change in the law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).