TGS-NOPEC GEOPHYSICAL CO. v. Combs

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that courts adopt statute’s interpretation that is supported by statute’s plain language if statute is unambiguous, unless such interpretation would lead to absurd results
• recognizing that we do not adopt an interpretation of the plain language if that “interpretation would lead to absurd results”
• holding that if statute is unambiguous, courts adopt interpretation supported by its plain language unless doing so would lead to absurd results, and courts consider statutes as a whole rather than their isolated provisions
• observing that statutory terms are given ordinary meaning unless assigned different meaning by statute or different meaning is apparent from context
• emphasizing that we presume the Legislature chooses its words with care, including words it intends to include and omitting words it intends to omit
• explaining that the Court will not defer to agency interpretations if the statutory language is unambiguous

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).