stating that there is a presumption in the Bankruptcy Code that "equivalent words have equivalent meaning when repeated in the same statute....”
How later courts described this case
- stating that there is a presumption in the Bankruptcy Code that "equivalent words have equivalent meaning when repeated in the same statute....”
- describing § 1326(b) as "a penalty provision” that "does , not define a separate crime”
- treating employer’s duty to reimburse pension fund through periodic payments in satisfaction of withdrawal liability under MPPAA as installment contract
- prosecutor’s conduct in connection with preparation and filing of charging documents protected by absolute immunity
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice Stevens,
dissenting.
For reasons previously stated, see Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1, 4 (1992), and cases cited, I respectfully dissent.