DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 1437d

Citation
Section 1437d
Parent Document
Rucker v. Davis, 237 F.3d 1113 (2001)
Effective Date
2001-01-24
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7086389/rucker-v-davis/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (190)

Full Text

525 chars 
Although the dissent contends the Supreme Court frowns on consideration of hypothetical applications of statutes [Dissent at 1130], the Court itself has clearly looked beyond the facts of individual cases to the broader ramifications of a given interpretation when evaluating whether such interpretation creates absurd results. See, e.g., X-Citement Video, 513 U.S. at 69, 115 S.Ct. 464. The absurdity and unjustness of the potential results in this case confirms that HUD has missed the mark in discerning Congress’s intent.