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

908 chars 
Subsequent to these comments and subsequent to implementation of the HUD regulations, Congress once more amended the eviction statute — -and again failed to include an innocent owner exemption.8 These inactions of Congress are highly significant. “As a matter of statutory construction, we ‘presume that Congress is knowledgeable about existing law pertinent to the legislation it enacts.’ ” United States v. Hunter, 101 F.3d 82, 85 (9th Cir.1996) (quoting Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller, 486 U.S. 174, 184-185, 108 S.Ct. 1704, 100 L.Ed.2d 158 (1988)). In Hunter, this court presumed Congress was aware of judicial decisions interpreting a criminal statute when it amended that statute many years after its initial passage. “Accordingly, the only reasonable interpretation of *1135Congress omission of language ... is that Congress intended [the judicial interpretation to control].” Hunter, 101 F.3d at 85.