Powers v. Union Drilling, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• commenting that “[t]he legislators’ choice of the term ‘may’ leaves no doubt that availment” of particular identified procedures delineated in statute being addressed by court “was intended to operate in a discretionary, rather than an obligatory, manner”
• commenting that “[t]he legislators’ choice of the term ‘may’ leaves no doubt that availment” of particular identified procedures delineated in statute being addressed by court “was intended to operate in a discretionary, rather than an obligatory manner”
• stating “[t]he legislators’ choice of the term ‘may’ ... was intended to operate in a discretionary, rather than an obligatory, manner”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).