36 See generally quick of Amici Curiae nationwide Consumer 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 Worth 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 starting place for interpreting a statute may be the language for the statute it self. Missing a plainly expressed intention that is legislative the contrary, that language must ordinarily be seen as conclusive. ”); Conn. Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253–54 (1992) (“In interpreting a statute a court must always check out one cardinal canon before others…. Courts must presume that the legislature states in a statute exactly exactly what it indicates and means in a statute just just exactly what it says there. ”).
39 Conn. Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. At 254 (“when the text of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon can be the final: ‘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 Trends, 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 how courts additionally may check out the wider human anatomy of legislation into that the 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 additionally the Common Law of Interpretation, 98 Geo. L.J. 341, 344 (2010).
49 See Hernandez v. Kalinowski, 146 F. 3d 196, 200 (third Cir. 1998).
50 Scott, supra note 47, at 376.
51 See Larry Eig, Cong. Analysis Serv., 97-589, General Principles and current styles 15 (2014).
52 Larry Eig, Cong. Analysis Serv., 97-589, General Principles and trends that are recent2011).
54 Brunner v. Nyc State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp., 831 F. 2d 395, 396 (2nd Cir. 1987); Roe v. Law product (In re Roe), 226 B.R. 258, 274 (N.D. Ala. 1998) (discovering that the debtor failed to establish enough good faith in claiming undue difficulty underneath 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).
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 installment loans idaho 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 think twice to treat statutory terms as surplusage in every environment).
70 See Gregory S. Crespi, effectiveness Rejected: Evaluating Undue Hardship Claims underneath 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 type and web price of the accommodation required under this component, bearing in mind the accessibility to taxation credits and deductions, and/or outside capital; (ii) the entire monetary sourced elements of the center or facilities mixed up in supply for the reasonable accommodation, how many people used at such center, while the influence on costs and resources; (iii) the entire monetary sourced elements of the covered entity, the general measurements of the company associated with covered entity with regards to the quantity of its workers, additionally the quantity, kind and location of the facilities; (iv) the kind of procedure or operations regarding the covered entity, like the structure, framework and procedures regarding the workforce of these entity, while the geographical separateness and administrative or financial relationship regarding the center or facilities at issue towards the covered entity; and (v) The effect associated with the accommodation upon the procedure for the center, like the affect the capability of other workers to execute their duties and also the effect on the facility’s ability to conduct company. ”).