Filed July 8, 2015
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 528 (2002). See also Florida Dept of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, 554 U.S. 33, 48 (2008). The same principle applies to contracts.
Filed February 10, 2017
But a review of the statute demonstrates that such a limitation is not contained in the text of Section 170(b). See Fla. Dep't of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc., 554 U.S. 33, 53 (2008); Ali v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214, 228 (2008)(federal courts are not free to rewrite statutes -- and limit the reach of Congressional legislation -- to achieve an outcome that the court deems more desirable). Moreover, the interpretation of Section 170(b) adopted by Judge Matsch in the Chase Dismissal Order diverges from the statutory purpose.
Filed August 10, 2016
v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 212 (1998), the Supreme Court has held that “statutory titles and section headings are tools available for the resolution of a doubt about the meaning of a statute.” Florida Dep’t of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc., 554 U.S. 33, 47 (2008). See also Singh v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 969, 977 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Although statutory titles are not part of the legislation, they may be instructive in putting the statute in context.”)
Filed July 30, 2011
And the use of the structure of the statute is one of the foremost cannons of statutory interpretation applied by the United States Supreme Court. Nken v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1749, 1759 (2009) (noting that “the Court frequently takes Congress’s structural choices into consideration when interpreting statutory provisions” and finding the decision to place one “provision four subsections later,” demonstrated that, despite the broad language of that subsection, it was not intended to disturb other subprovisions located earlier in the statutory text) (citing Fla. Dep’t of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc., 554 U.S. 33, 50 (2008)). C. The inclusion of specific language in the disclosure provision referencing the civil action provision, which is absent from the destruction of old records provision, also supports the Sixth Circuit’s narrow interpretation.