<?xml version="1.0" encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE wml PUBLIC "-//WAPFORUM//DTD WML 1.1//EN" "http://www.wapforum.org/DTD/wml_1.1.xml">
<wml>
<card id="card1" title="Statutory interpretation - Page 22 - Wikipedia">
<p>
<a accesskey="1" href="page.php?w=Statutory_interpretation&amp;p=21">1.Previous</a><br />
<a accesskey="3" href="page.php?w=Statutory_interpretation&amp;p=23">3.Next</a>
</p>
<p>Safety Commission et al. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. et al., 447 U.S. 102 (1980).  "[I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others.&nbsp;... [C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, <a href="page.php?w=Case_citation">112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149</a> (1992). Indeed, "when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: 'judicial inquiry is complete. 503 U.S. 249, 254.</p><p>
<a accesskey="1" href="page.php?w=Statutory_interpretation&amp;p=21">1.Previous</a><br />
<a accesskey="3" href="page.php?w=Statutory_interpretation&amp;p=23">3.Next</a>
</p>

<do type="prev" label="Search">
        <go href="search.wml"/>
</do>

</card>
</wml>
