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 demonstrably expressed intention that is legislative 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 look to one cardinal canon before others…. Courts must presume that the legislature states in a statute just exactly 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 language of the statute are unambiguous, then, this very very very 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 Recent 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 exactly 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 therefore 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 Recent 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 would not establish adequate 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 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 think twice to deal with statutory terms as surplusage in just about any 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 on a covered entity, facets become considered include: (i) the character and web price of the accommodation required under this component, bearing in mind the accessibility to income tax credits and deductions, and/or outside money; (ii) the entire monetary sources of the center or facilities active in the supply associated with reasonable accommodation, how many people used at such center, while the influence on costs and resources; (iii) the entire economic sourced elements of the covered entity, the general measurements of the business enterprise associated with the covered entity with regards to the wide range of its workers, while the quantity, kind and location of the facilities; (iv) the sort of procedure or operations associated with the covered entity, like the structure, framework and functions associated with the workforce of these entity, in addition to geographical separateness and administrative or financial relationship associated with center or facilities at issue into the covered entity; and (v) The effect associated with accommodation upon the procedure associated with center, such as the effect on the capability of other workers to do their duties in addition to effect on the facility’s ability to conduct company. ”).