59 F. Supp. 2d 861 - Hoffman v. Cargill, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 5 U.S.C. § 706 · 9 U.S.C. § 1 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 10 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 11 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 12 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 16 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 7
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · Connecticut National Bank v. Germain · First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The task of resolving the dispute over the meaning of [a statute] begins where all such inquiries must begin: with the language of the statute itself.” United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241 , 109 S.Ct. 1026 , 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989); Chevron U.S.A v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 , 104 S.Ct. 2778 , 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984); United States v. Union Elec. Co., 64 F.3d 1152 , 1165 (8th Cir.1995) (citing Ron Pair); United States ex rel. Harlan v. Bacon, 21 F.3d 209, 210 (8th Cir.1994) (“When construing a statute, we are obliged to look first to the plain meaning of the words employed by the legislature ...,” citing Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-43 , 104 S.Ct. 2778 ); United States v. Manthei, 979 F.2d 124, 126 (8th Cir.1992) (“When interpreting statutory language, the court must first look to the plain meaning of the language,” citing North Dakota v. United States, 460 U.S. 300, 312-13 , 103 S.Ct. 1095 , 75 L.Ed.2d 77 (1983)). The Supreme Court describes this rule as the “one, cardinal canon before all others.” Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253 , 112 S.Ct. 1146 , 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992). Thus, “courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there: Ron Pair, 489 U.S. at 241-42 , 109 S.Ct. 1026 ; United States v. Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 95, 102-03 , 18 S.Ct. 3 , 42 L.Ed. 394 (1897); Oneale v. Thornton, 6 Cranch 53, 68 , 3 L.Ed. 150 (1810)). When the language of the statute”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.