Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

The plain language of the statute should 'yield to the legislative intent of the Bankruptcy Code drafters.' Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. at 242-43; Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 571, 102 S. Ct. 3245, 73 L. Ed. 2d 973 (1982). Both cited cases deal with the absurdity doctrine. The drafters' intentions rather than the plain language controls when ''literal application of a statute will produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intentions of its drafters.'' Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. at 242 (quoting Griffin, 458 U.S. at 571) (noting that only in the ''rare case'' will this doctrine apply). In Griffin, the Supreme Court stated that it had 'reserved some scope for adopting a restricted rather than a literal or usual meaning of its words where acceptance of that meaning . . . would thwart the obvious purpose of the statute.' 458 U.S. at 571 (quotations omitted. 

The absurdity doctrine applies to unambiguous statutes 'as a means to avoid applying the unequivocal language of a statute. But the doctrine has been strictly limited.' Robbins v. Chronister, 435 F.3d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 2006) (en banc). The absurdity doctrine ...

Register or login to access full content