Wisconsin DWD v. Wisconsin LIRC

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that, “[u]nder the commands of the Supreme Court, a statute that ‘does not contain conflicting provisions or ambiguous language’ does not ‘require a narrowing construction or application of any other canon or interpretative tool’”
• explaining that, “[u]nder the commands of the Supreme Court, a statute that ‘does not contain conflicting provisions or ambiguous language’ does not ‘require a narrowing construction or application of any other canon or interpretative tool’”
• finding no surplusage where a statute contained multiple definitions of potential benefit recipients even though a particular person might qualify under multiple definitions
• “Normal usage in the English language would read the word ‘such’ as referring to the entire antecedent phrase.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).