Cases pin-citing Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

Cases pin-citing Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad  ·  1947  ·  55 pinpoint citations from 22 cases, 18 distinct passages.

Ariel Marcelo Bastias v. U.S. Attorney General  ·  2025-10-30  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  pin 331 U.S. at 519
“[T]he title of a statute and the heading of a section cannot limit the plain meaning of the text.”
Madhu SudhanKanapuram v. Director, US Citizenship and Immigration Services  ·  2025-03-20  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  pin 331 U.S. at 519
“[T]he heading of a section cannot limit the plain meaning of the text.”
Marcos Ramos v. Amazon.com, Inc.  ·  2024-11-25  ·  C.D. California  ·  pin 331 U.S. at 519
“Factors of this type have led to a wise rule that the title of a statute and the 11 heading of a section cannot limit the plain meaning of the text…[t]hey are but tools available for the 12 resolution of doubt. But they cannot undo or limit that which the text makes plain.”
Ledesma Paredes v. Barr  ·  2023-12-14  ·  District of Columbia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 331 L. Ed. at 519
“That the heading of [the section] fails to refer to all the matters which the framers of that section wrote into the text is not an unusual fact. . . . [H]eadings and titles are not meant to take the place of the detailed provisions of the text.”
Easom v. US Well Services, Inc.  ·  2021-03-19  ·  S.D. Texas  ·  pin 331 U.S. at 519
“[T]he wise rule [is] that the title of a statute and the heading of a section cannot limit the plain meaning of the text.”
McMaken v. GreatBanc Trust Company  ·  2019-04-03  ·  N.D. Illinois  ·  pin 331 U.S. at 519
“[Headings and titles] are but tools available for the resolution of a doubt. But they cannot undo or limit that which the text makes plain.”
Cent. Sierra Envtl. Res. Ctr. v. Stanislaus Nat'l Forest  ·  2018-02-06  ·  E.D. California  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 331 L. Ed. at 519
"the heading of a section cannot limit the plain meaning of the text"
United States v. Faust  ·  2017-04-05  ·  First Circuit  ·  4 pin-cites  ·  pin 331 L. Ed. at 519
"[T]he title of a statute and the heading of a section cannot limit the plain meaning of the text."
United States ex rel. Takemoto v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.  ·  2016-01-20  ·  W.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 331 L. Ed. at 519
“titles are not meant to take the place of the detailed provisions of the text.... They are but tools available for the resolution of a doubt. But they cannot undo or limit that which the text makes plain”
United States v. Abu Khatallah  ·  2015-12-23  ·  District of Columbia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 331 L. Ed. at 519
“[T]he title of a statute and the heading of a section cannot limit the plain meaning of the text.”
Owens v. Baltimore City State's Attorneys Office  ·  2014-09-24  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 331 L. Ed. at 519
“[T]he title of the statute and the heading of a section cannot limit the plain meaning of the text. For interpretive purposes, they are of use only when they shed light on some ambiguous word or phrase.”
Payne v. District of Columbia Government  ·  2013-06-07  ·  D.C. Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 331 L. Ed. at 519
“[T]he heading of a section cannot limit the plain meaning of the text”
United States v. Cotton  ·  2011-01-20  ·  District of Columbia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 331 L. Ed. at 519
“[T]he title of a statute and the heading of a section cannot limit the plain meaning of the text.”
Diagnostic Devices, Inc. v. Taidoc Technology Corp.  ·  2009-03-19  ·  W.D. North Carolina  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 331 L. Ed. at 519
“restrictive conditions may be appropriately placed on a permissive interve-nor”
Geo-Seis Helicopters, Inc. v. United States  ·  2007-07-30  ·  Federal Claims  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 67 L. Ed. at 1387
“[T]he title of a statute and the heading of a section cannot limit the plain meaning of the text. For interpretative purposes, they are of use only when they shed light on some ambiguous word or phrase[J ... [b]ut they cannot undo or limit that which the text makes plain.”
McClelland v. Johnson  ·  2004-10-28  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 331 L. Ed. at 519
“Ordinarily, in the absence of an abuse of discretion, no appeal lies from an order denying leave to intervene where intervention is a permissive matter with the discretion of the court.”
In Re Lorillard Tobacco Company  ·  2004-06-07  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 331 L. Ed. at 519
"Th[e] heading [of a statutory section] is but a shorthand reference to the general subject matter involved... [and is] not meant to take the place of the detailed provisions of the text."
M.A. Ex Rel. E.S. v. State-Operated School District of Newark  ·  2003-09-16  ·  Third Circuit  ·  pin 91 L. Ed. at 1646
“[MJatters in-the text which deviate from those falling within the general pattern are frequently unreflected in the headings and titles. Factors of this type have led to the wise rule that the title of a statute and the heading of a section cannot limit the plain meaning of the text.”
Delfino Vasquez-Lopez v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General  ·  2003-09-11  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 331 L. Ed. at 519
"the heading of a section cannot limit the plain meaning of the text"
Ransom, Alma v. Norton, Gale A.  ·  2001-06-15  ·  D.C. Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 331 L. Ed. at 519
“since [a would-be intervenor as of right] cannot appeal from any subsequent order or judgment in the proceeding unless he does intervene, the order denying intervention has the degree of definitiveness which supports an appeal therefrom”
Mohegan Tribe v. State of Conn.  ·  1980-01-17  ·  D. Connecticut  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 331 L. Ed. at 519
“[B]asic principle of statutory construction . . gives precedence, in the event of irreconcilable conflict, to words in the body of a provision over those in the caption.”
Page 1 of 2   Next →