United States v. Missouri Pacific Railroad

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “pledge” has a broader meaning of dedicate as collateral and a narrower one of transfer of possession of collateral as security
• holding that the reasons for and the significant circumstances leading up to the enactment of a law “may be noticed in confirmation of the meaning conveyed by the words used”
• announcing the American Plain Meaning Rule, that “where the language of an enactment is clear and construction according to its terms does not lead to absurd or impractical consequences, the words employed are to be taken as the final expression of the meaning intended”
• “[W]here language of statute is clear, and construction according to its terms does not lead to absurd or impracticable consequences, words employed are to be taken as final expression of the meaning intended ... ”
• “[W]here the language of an enactment is clear, and construction according to its terms does not lead to absurd or impracticable consequences, the words employed are to be taken as the final expression of the meaning intended.”
• “[W]here language of statute is clear, and construction according to its terms does not lead to absurd or impracticable consequences, words employed are to be taken as final expression of the meaning intended ... ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).