Rivera Millan, Maximo v. Bimmer Soluction, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “when the words of a statute are unambiguous, ... ‘judicial inquiry is complete’ ”
• holding that, when the words of a statute are clear, “ ‘the judicial inquiry is complete” ’
• holding that the principal canon of statutory construction is that words are to be given their ordinary meaning
• holding that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 158(d) does not disallow the courts of appeals from hearing interlocutory appeals of district court orders reviewing bankruptcy court decisions
• holding that Congress “says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says”
• concluding that interpretation of statute “beg[an] and end[ed]” with unambiguous text of the statute and rejecting argument that “legislative history point[ed] to a different result”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).