Russell Phillips v. Chicago Central & Pacific Railroad Company, a Delaware Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that statutory terms are often “clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that statutory terms are often “clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that “statutory terms are often ‘clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme’ ” (quoting United Sav. Ass’n of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., Ltd., 484 U.S. 365, 371, 108 S. Ct. 626, 630 (1988))
• noting one court described the RRA \as 'the expenditure side of the coin' and the RRTA 'the revenue side[.]' \
• noting “that statutory terms are often ‘clarified by the 10 remainder of the statutory scheme’ ” (quoting United Sav. Ass’n of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., 484 U.S. 365, 371, 108 S. Ct. 626, 630 (1988))
• noting “that statutory terms are often ‘clarified by the 10 12/23/2020 8:00:45 AM remainder of the statutory scheme’ ” (quoting United Sav. Ass’n of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., 484 U.S. 365, 371, 108 S. Ct. 626, 630 (1988))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).