Gurumurthy Kalyanaram - Former Dean and former NYIT and UT Dallas professor Gurumurthy Kalyanaram
reports on important US Supreme Court decisions on interpretation of
agreements and statutes. Here is an executive summary of these
decisions.Gurumurthy Kalyanaram Lawsuit
Ruling in several lawsuits, the Supreme Court has held in its very recent decisionsthe words of any agreement or statute must be interpreted based upon their ordinary (dictionary) meaning, to give them effect. See Law v. Siegel, 134 S.Ct. 1188, 1195 (2014); Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., 134 S.Ct. 870, 876-877 (2014). Gurumurthy Kalyanaram Lawsuit
In its review of lawsuits and petitions, the Court has also held that the Congressional intent must be given due deference. See Lawson v. FMR LLC, 134 S.Ct. 1158, 1169 (2014); Law v. Siegel, 134 S.Ct. at 1195.
The Court has reiterated these holdings, which it has held for the last fifty years, including in United States ex. rel. Kirk v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 131 S.Ct. 1885, 1892 (2011).
Among these, Law v. Siegel is a very interesting case. In Law v. Siegel, Law, a bankrupt citizen, filed a lawsuit against the finding of the bankruptcy court that he was liable for the litigation costs of Siegel, the trustee in the bankruptcy proceeding. Outraged by many deceptive behaviors of Law to keep monies, the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision of the bankruptcy court. But the Supreme Court, while greatly angered by Law’s behavior, could not find a reason to uphold the Ninth Circuit ruling (though it found Law’s behavior completely reprehensible) because a plain reading of the Bankruptcy Code made it clear that the bankruptcy court did not have authority to impose administrative costs (“not liable for the payment of any administrative expense.”) In summary, the Court in this case held that even if the individual’s flagrantly deceptive conduct results in hundreds of thousands of dollars of litigation the plain reading of a code/statute must be respected.
So, a dictionary meaning of the agreements, codes and statutes must be the basis for interpretation even when the conduct of one of the parties is reprehensible.
The Court held in Lawsonthat anti-retaliation protection that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 provides to whistleblowers applies to employees of a public company's private contractors and subcontractors. And in Sandiferthe Court held that the definition of “changing clothes” is what is found in dictionary, nothing more ornate than that.
Ruling in several lawsuits, the Supreme Court has held in its very recent decisionsthe words of any agreement or statute must be interpreted based upon their ordinary (dictionary) meaning, to give them effect. See Law v. Siegel, 134 S.Ct. 1188, 1195 (2014); Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., 134 S.Ct. 870, 876-877 (2014). Gurumurthy Kalyanaram Lawsuit
In its review of lawsuits and petitions, the Court has also held that the Congressional intent must be given due deference. See Lawson v. FMR LLC, 134 S.Ct. 1158, 1169 (2014); Law v. Siegel, 134 S.Ct. at 1195.
The Court has reiterated these holdings, which it has held for the last fifty years, including in United States ex. rel. Kirk v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 131 S.Ct. 1885, 1892 (2011).
Among these, Law v. Siegel is a very interesting case. In Law v. Siegel, Law, a bankrupt citizen, filed a lawsuit against the finding of the bankruptcy court that he was liable for the litigation costs of Siegel, the trustee in the bankruptcy proceeding. Outraged by many deceptive behaviors of Law to keep monies, the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision of the bankruptcy court. But the Supreme Court, while greatly angered by Law’s behavior, could not find a reason to uphold the Ninth Circuit ruling (though it found Law’s behavior completely reprehensible) because a plain reading of the Bankruptcy Code made it clear that the bankruptcy court did not have authority to impose administrative costs (“not liable for the payment of any administrative expense.”) In summary, the Court in this case held that even if the individual’s flagrantly deceptive conduct results in hundreds of thousands of dollars of litigation the plain reading of a code/statute must be respected.
So, a dictionary meaning of the agreements, codes and statutes must be the basis for interpretation even when the conduct of one of the parties is reprehensible.
The Court held in Lawsonthat anti-retaliation protection that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 provides to whistleblowers applies to employees of a public company's private contractors and subcontractors. And in Sandiferthe Court held that the definition of “changing clothes” is what is found in dictionary, nothing more ornate than that.
No comments:
Post a Comment