Citation network
General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. Vs. Cline
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 24, 2004
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Syllabus October Term, 2003 General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. V. ClineSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. V. ClineSearch
-
relative youth, leaving complaints of the relatively young outside the statutory concern. See, e.g., Hazen Paper Co. v. BigginsSearch
-
different parts of the same Act are intended to have the same meaning, see, e.g., Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
that statutory language must be read in context since a phrase gathers meaning from the words around it. E.g., Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
the EEOC is clearly wrong. Even for an agency able to claim all the authority possible under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
of judicial construction have been tried and found to yield no clear sense of congressional intent, e.g., INS v. Cardoza-FonsecaSearch
-
Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kennedy, J., joined. General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. v. ClineSearch
-
Opinion of the Court General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. V. ClineSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 02-1080 General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc., Petitioner V. DennisSearch
-
s opinion in Hamilton v. CaterpillarSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
id. , at 1227 (quoting Karlen v. CitySearch
-
Colleges of Chicago , 837 F. 2d 314, 318 (CA7), cert. denied sub nom. Teachers v. CitySearch
-
at 472. The court acknowledged the conflict of its ruling with earlier cases, including Hamilton and Schuler v. PolaroidSearch
-
Connor v. ConsolidatedSearch
-
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967) (hereinafter Senate Hearings). See generally EEOC v. WyomingSearch
-
nearly devoid of decisions like the one reviewed here. To start closest to home, the best example is Hazen Paper Co. v. BigginsSearch
-
Western Air Lines, Inc. v. CriswellSearch
-
Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
see also United States v. ClevelandSearch
-
Robinson v. ShellSearch
-
Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
to McDonald v. SantaSearch
-
Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U. S. 273 (1976), and Oncale v. SundownerSearch
-
Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio v. BettsSearch
-
s reading, with General Dynamics urging us that Skidmore v. SwiftSearch
-
a) deserves greater deference under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
lately to the varying degrees of deference deserved by agency pronouncements of different sorts, see United States v. MeadSearch
-
Christensen v. HarrisSearch
-
County, 529 U. S. 576 (2000), the recent cases are not on point here. In Edelman v. LynchburgSearch
-
the devices of judicial construction have been tried and found to yield no clear sense of congressional intent. INS v. Cardoza-FonsecaSearch
-
post , at 6, which he calls inconsistent with the method of McDonald v. SantaSearch
-
U. S. 273 (1976) (the Title VII prohibition of discrimination because of race protects whites), and Oncale v. SundownerSearch
-
narrow class of cases that prompted Congress to address their subject matter. Footnote 6 See Lawrence v. IrondequoitSearch
-
Greer v. PensionSearch
-
Dittman v. GeneralSearch
-
Parker v. WakelinSearch
-
Wehrly v. AmericanSearch
-
Motors Sales Corp. , 678 F. Supp. 1366, 1382 (ND Ind. 1988) (following Karlen v. CitySearch
-
U. S. 1044 (1988)). The only case we have found arguably to the contrary is Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. LocalSearch
-
has not been shy in revising other judicial constructions of the ADEA. See Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio v. BettsSearch
-
s earlier case of United Air Lines, Inc. v. McMannSearch
-
Conflict of Laws, 42 Yale L. J. 333, 337 (1933). The passage has become a staple of our opinions. See United States v. ClevelandSearch
-
NationsBank of N. C., N. A. v. VariableSearch
-
CAB v. DeltaSearch
-
Scalia, J., Dissenting General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. V. ClineSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial