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 point that is starting interpreting a statute may be the language associated with statute it self. Missing a demonstrably expressed intention that is legislative the contrary, that language must ordinarily be viewed 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 a legislature states in a statute just just just what it indicates and means in a statute just just 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 very first canon can also be the very last: ‘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 just how courts additionally may check out the wider human body 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 in addition to 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 current styles 15 (2014).
52 Larry Eig, Cong. Analysis Serv., 97-589, General Principles and current styles (2011).
54 Brunner v. Ny 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 enough faith that is good 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 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 usa 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 think twice to deal with statutory terms as surplusage in every 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, factors become considered include: (i) the type and web price of the accommodation required under this component, bearing in mind the option of taxation credits and deductions, and/or outside capital; (ii) the general monetary sources of the center or facilities active in the supply associated with the reasonable accommodation, how many individuals used at such center, and also the influence on costs and resources; (iii) the general economic sources of the covered entity, the entire measurements of the business enterprise associated with covered entity with regards to the quantity of its workers, together with quantity, kind and location of the facilities; (iv) the sort of procedure or operations associated with covered entity, such as the structure, framework and procedures of this workforce of these entity, in addition to geographic separateness and administrative or financial relationship associated with the center or facilities under consideration towards the covered entity; and (v) The effect regarding the accommodation upon the procedure associated with the center, such as the effect on the power of other employees to do their duties additionally the effect on the facility’s ability to conduct company. ”).