Interpreting civil code provisions without extrinsic sources
Also stated as: Statutory and Code Interpretation Principles
The pages courts cite for it
- Cited for: Interpreting civil code provisions without extrinsic sources
- Cited for: Authoritative interpretation of D.C. Code section
- Cited for: Interpreting statutes and uniform commercial code rules
- Cited for: Interpreting code provisions and official comments
- Cited for: Codification of cognitive theory in civil code
- Cited for: Defining "compiled" under statute to include later gathering
- Cited for: Analyzing standing when multiple code provisions apply
- Cited for: Adopting model code interpretation by legislature
Ranked by how often federal courts cite each page. The bar is how citing opinions treated that page (green followed, yellow questioned or limited, red negative); a red or yellow chip is the case’s own overall treatment.
Federal opinions citing these pages
- Knous v. Broadridge Fin. Solutions, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-11973 (D. Mass. May 27, 2020)
- Littlefield v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 199 F. Supp. 3d 391 (D. Mass. 2016)
- Brown v. United States Parole Comm'n, 190 F. Supp. 3d 186 (D.D.C. 2016)
- United States v. Wright, 812 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2016)
- Alabama Educ. Ass'n v. State Superintendent of Educ., 746 F.3d 1135 (11th Cir. 2014)
- Herndon v. United States Parole Comm'n, 961 F. Supp. 2d 138 (D.D.C. 2013)
- United States v. Martinez-Maldonado, 722 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013)
- FirstBank Puerto Rico v. Mujica (In re Mujica), 492 B.R. 355 (D.P.R. 2013)
- Crowe v. cca/ctf, No. 2011-2019 (D.D.C. Nov. 29, 2011)
- RG Premier Bank v. Alvarado (In Re Alvarado), 463 B.R. 200 (D.P.R. 2011)
- Speight v. Fulwood, 778 F. Supp. 2d 99 (D.D.C. 2011)
- Speight v. Fullwood, No. 2010-1777 (D.D.C. Apr. 25, 2011)
- McFadden v. United States Parole Comm'n, 741 F. Supp. 2d 61 (D.D.C. 2010)
- McFadden v. United States Parole Comm'n, No. 2010-0597 (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2010)
- Chappell v. U. S. Parole Comm'n, No. 2009-0361 (D.D.C. Feb. 24, 2009)
From the opinions citing the top pages above (up to 400 per page are read), most pages cited first, then newest.
Nearest issues
- 394 opinions
- 293 opinions
- 33 opinions
- 66 opinions
- 151 opinions
- 48 opinions
- 147 opinions
- 86 opinions
Filed under: Lenity and Stare Decisis in Construction
Where else it is alive
Opinions per jurisdiction citing these pages. A span that stops early can mean the doctrine was dropped there.
How this is built: each issue is a set of opinion pages that later courts cite for the same proposition, grouped from what the citing courts wrote. Names are machine-written from those citations; read the cases before relying on them. Search case law