Recklitis v. Commissioner

How courts have described this case

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

• “[W]e have ‘no roving license, in even ordinary cases of statutory interpretation, to disregard clear language simply on the view that . . . Congress must have intended something [narrower].’” (second alteration in original
• “In interpreting a statute, we look first to the language of the statute itself. When the language of the statute is unambiguous, judicial inquiry is complete.” (quoting Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Simon, 310 F.3d 280, 289–90 (2d Cir. 2002))
• “In interpreting a statute, we look first to the language of the statute itself. When the language of the statute is unambiguous, judicial inquiry is complete.” (quoting Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Simon, 310 F.3d 280, 289–90 (2d Cir. 2002))
• “We and several of our sister circuits have long held that, for the purpose of analyzing claim preclusion, ‘the scope of the litigation is framed by the complaint at the time it is filed.’” (quoting Comput. Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 126 F.3d 365, 369-70 (2d Cir. 1997

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).