Securities & Exchange Commission v. Rosenthal

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the maximum penalty under Section 21A is based on the \profitability of the violation \
• rejecting contention that plaintiff’s urged interpretation avoided absurdity, observing “that it is the [plaintiff’s] interpretation that can lead to absurd results”
• “It is … well-established that a statute should be interpreted in a way that avoids absurd results.”
• “It is, to be sure, well-established that ‘[a] statute should be interpreted in a way that avoids absurd results.’” (quoting United States v. Venturella, 391 F.3d 120, 126 (2d Cir. 2004))
• “The Secretary[ of Labor’s] regulations defined the term ‘salary basis’ as requiring, inter alia, that the employee’s compensation not to be ‘subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of the work performed.’” (quoting Auer, 519 U.S. at 455)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).