Rouprich v. Cazes

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting agency’s interpretation, and concluding that “practice” in section 206 of the Federal Power Act is not ambiguous when considered in context
• rejecting agen- cy’s interpretation, and concluding that “practice” in section 206 of the Federal Power Act is not ambiguous when considered in context
• “Traditional principles of statutory construction counsel against reading acts of Congress to be superfluous.”
• “[W]e assume ‘that the legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used.’” (quoting Sec. Indus. Ass’n v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys., 468 U.S. 137, 149 (1984))
• “[W]e assume ‘that the legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used.’” (quoting Sec. Indus. Ass’n v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys., 468 U.S. 137, 149 (1984))
• “the section title of a statute is not dispositive of its meaning”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).