36 See generally quick of Amici Curiae nationwide customer Law Center And nationwide Association Of customer Bankruptcy Attorneys, Murphy v. U.S. Dept. Of Education, No. 14-1691 (1st Cir. Oct. 25, 2016).
37 Joseph A. Grundfest & A.C. Pritchard, Statutes With Several Personality Disorders: The Worthiness Of Ambiguity In Statutory Design And Interpretation, 54 Stan. L. Rev. 627, 628 (2002).
38 Consumer Product protection Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980) (“We start out with the familiar canon of statutory construction that the kick off point for interpreting a statute could be the language for the statute it self. Missing a plainly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be considered conclusive. ”); Conn. Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253–54 (1992) (“In interpreting a statute a court must always check out one canon that is cardinal all others…. Courts must presume that the legislature states in a statute exactly exactly just what it indicates and means in a statute exactly exactly what there. ” is said by it).
39 Conn. Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. At 254 (“when the text of the statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon can be the past: ‘judicial inquiry is complete. ’”).
40 In re Geneva metal Co., 281 F. 3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2002).
41 Grundfest & Pritchard, supra note 37, at 642.
42 Larry Eig, Statutory Interpretation: General Principles and current styles, Congressional Research provider, at 4 (2011); see also United Savings Ass’n v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., 484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988); Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 U.S. 504, 528 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring) (talking about exactly just how courts additionally may check out the wider human anatomy of legislation into that your enactment fits).
43 United Savings Ass’n v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., 484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988).
44 A Gu Writing Ctr. At Geo. U.L. Ctr., at 9, https: //www. Law. Georgetown.edu/academics/academic-programs/legal-writing-scholarship/writing-center/upload/A-Guide-to-Reading-Interpreting-and-Applying-Statutes. Pdf.
46 See generally id.
47 Jacob Scott, Codified Canons together with Common Law of Interpretation, 98 Geo. L.J. 341, 344 (2010).
49 See Hernandez v. Kalinowski, 146 F. 3d 196, 200 (3rd Cir. 1998).
50 Scott, supra note 47, at 376.
51 See Larry Eig, Cong. Analysis Serv., 97-589, General Principles and trends that are recent (2014).
52 Larry Eig, Cong. Analysis Serv., 97-589, General Principles and current styles (2011).
54 Brunner v. Nyc State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp., 831 F. 2d 395, 396 (2nd Cir. 1987); Roe v. Law device (In re Roe), 226 B.R. 258, 274 (N.D. Ala. 1998) (discovering that the debtor failed to establish adequate good faith in claiming undue difficulty beneath the Johnson test).
55 Austin, supra note 12, at 379.
57 Brief for Professor Rafael Pardo as Amicus Curiae, p., Murphy v. U.S. Dept. Of Educ., No. 14-1691 (1st Cir. Oct. 25, 2016). https://speedyloan.net/installment-loans-ia
58 See a help Guide To Reading, Interpreting And Applying Statutes, supra note 44; Scott, supra note 47, at 376.
59 See Brief for Professor Rafael Pardo as Amicus Curiae, p. 11–13, Murphy v. U.S. Dept. Of Educ., No. 14-1691 (1st Cir. Oct. 25, 2016).
60 11 U.S.C. § 524(m)(1).
64 See Brief for Professor Rafael Pardo as Amicus Curiae, p. 11–13, Murphy v. U.S. Dept. Of Educ., No. 14-1691 (1st Cir. Oct. 25, 2016).
65 34 U.S.C. § 10281(m).
67 Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 174 (2001).
68 united states of america v. E-Gold, Ltd., 550 F. Supp. 2d 82, 93 (D.D.C. 2008).
69 Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. At 174; see Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter, Communities for Great Ore., 515 U.S. 687, 698 (1995); see also Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 140 (1994) (“judges should wait to deal with statutory terms as surplusage in virtually any environment).
70 See Gregory S. Crespi, effectiveness Rejected: Evaluating Undue Hardship Claims beneath the People in the us with Disabilities Act, 26 Tulsa L. R. 1, 2–3 (1990).
71 42 U.S. C § 12112.
72 29 CRF 1630.2.
73 Id. (“In determining whether an accommodation would impose an undue difficulty for a covered entity, facets become considered include: (i) the character and web price of the accommodation needed under this part, bearing in mind the accessibility to taxation credits and deductions, and/or outside capital; (ii) the entire monetary sources of the center or facilities active in the supply regarding the reasonable accommodation, how many people used at such center, plus the influence on costs and resources; (iii) the entire economic resources of the covered entity, the general size of the company for the covered entity with regards to the quantity of its workers, while the number, kind and location of their facilities; (iv) the sort of procedure or operations for the covered entity, such as the structure, framework and procedures for the workforce of these entity, in addition to geographical separateness and administrative or financial relationship regarding the center or facilities at issue towards the covered entity; and (v) The effect for the accommodation upon the operation of this center, such as the effect on the power of other workers to do their duties while the effect on the facility’s ability to conduct company. ”).