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 associated with the statute it self. Missing a plainly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be thought to be conclusive. ”); Conn. Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253–54 (1992) (“In interpreting a statute a court must always seek out one canon that is cardinal all others…. Courts must presume that the legislature states in a statute 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 language of the statute are unambiguous, then, this very first canon can be the past: ‘judicial inquiry is complete. ’”).
40 In re Geneva Steel 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. http://speedyloan.net/installment-loans-id, 484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988); Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 U.S. 504, 528 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring) (speaking about exactly exactly how courts additionally may turn to 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 as well as 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 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 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 take care of statutory terms as surplusage in almost any environment).
70 See Gregory S. Crespi, Efficiency Rejected: Evaluating Undue Hardship Claims beneath the Us americans 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 type and web price of the accommodation required under this component, bearing in mind the accessibility to income tax credits and deductions, and/or outside capital; (ii) the general monetary sourced elements of the center or facilities mixed up in supply of this reasonable accommodation, the amount of people employed at such center, therefore the impact on costs and resources; (iii) the general monetary sourced elements of the covered entity, the general size of the company regarding the covered entity with regards to the amount of its workers, and also the number, kind and location of the facilities; (iv) the kind of procedure or operations of this covered entity, like the structure, framework and procedures regarding 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 regarding the accommodation upon the operation for the facility, such as the effect on the power of other workers to do their duties therefore the effect on the facility’s ability to conduct company. ”).