33 Pardo & Lacey, supra note 20, at 510.

33 Pardo & Lacey, <em>supra</em> note 20, at 510.

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 Safety 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 regarding the statute it self. Missing a demonstrably expressed legislative intention to 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 look to one canon that is cardinal others…. Courts must presume that a legislature states in a statute exactly just just what it indicates and means in a statute just just what it says there. ”).

39 Conn. Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. At 254 (“when the language of a statute are unambiguous, then, this very first canon can be the very last: ‘judicial inquiry is complete. ’”).

40 In re Geneva metal Co., 281 F. 3d https://speedyloan.net/installment-loans-il 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 exactly just how courts additionally may turn to the broader human body of legislation into that your 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 (third Cir. 1998).

50 Scott, supra note 47, at 376.

51 See Larry Eig, Cong. Analysis Serv., 97-589, General Principles and trends that are recent (2014).

52 Larry Eig, Cong. Analysis Serv., 97-589, General Principles and current styles (2011).

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 didn’t establish adequate faith that is good claiming undue difficulty beneath 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 help 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 virtually any environment).

70 See Gregory S. Crespi, effectiveness Rejected: Evaluating Undue Hardship Claims underneath 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 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 economic sources of the facility or facilities active in the supply regarding the reasonable accommodation, the amount of individuals employed at such center, while the impact on costs and resources; (iii) the entire economic sourced elements of the covered entity, the entire size of business associated with covered entity with regards to the wide range of its workers, additionally the quantity, kind and location of its facilities; (iv) the sort of procedure or operations associated with the covered entity, like the structure, framework and functions associated with workforce of these entity, in addition to geographic separateness and administrative or financial relationship associated with center or facilities under consideration towards the covered entity; and (v) The effect for the accommodation upon the procedure associated with center, like the effect on the power of other workers to do their duties therefore the affect the facility’s ability to conduct company. ”).