Russello v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that when Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another, a court presumes that Congress intended a difference in meaning
• noting that it is presumed that Congress acts intentionally in an exclusion
• finding that where “Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion”
• applying the presumption that the use of different words in different provisions is purposeful and evinces an intention to convey a different meaning
• rejecting the proposition that differing language in two subsections has the same meaning in each
• noting only a presumption that Congress has acted intentionally and purposely if it \includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act\ (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).