Florida Dep't of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc.

4 Citing briefs

  1. Massachusetts Nurses Association v. National Nurses United AFL-CIO

    MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

    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.

  2. Hasan v. American Express Centurion Bank

    BRIEF in Opposition to 31 MOTION for Leave to Notify Court of Pertinent District of Colorado Opinion in Support of 9 MOTION to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support Thereof

    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.

  3. Gila River Indian Community et al v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or, in the alternative, MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

    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.”)

  4. Boesky vs. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC

    REPLY

    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.