2019 Legal Opinions
Amicus Brief | Salgado v. United States
Salgado v. United States
Brief for the Cato Institute as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Salgado v. United States, case citation (No. 19-659).
In this brief, the Cato Institute argues that interpreting the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (“CAFRA”) according to “ordinary usage” of the terms therein is the best interpretation because the Act affects “ordinary citizens”—many of whom have trouble finding legal representation. To understand the meaning of the term “substantially prevails” in CAFRA, they combine analyses of a search for “substantial” in the Corpus of Contemporary American English (“COCA”) with common-sense intuitions, and dictionary definitions.
Amicus Brief | Wright v. Spaulding
Wright v Spaulding
Brief for Law and Linguistics Research Team on Behalf of Neither Party, Wright v. Spaulding, No. 17-4257 (6th Cir. 2019).
A team of scholars referred to as the “Law & Linguistics Research Team” use the Corpus of Founding Era American English (“COFEA”) to investigate the meaning of the term “cases” in Article III of the United States Constitution as the original public would have understood it. Using specific corpus evidence, they argue that the current interpretation of the term “cases” used in Article III may be a narrower definition than it was originally intended.
Supplemental Brief
Court Opinion | Richards v. Cox
Richards v. Cox
2019 UT 57, 450 P.3d 1074, 1079-81 (Utah 2019) (Supreme Court of Utah September 13, 2019).
This case addresses the issue of whether Senate Bill 78 (“SB 78”), making the Utah State Board of Education’s elections partisan, violates the Utah State Constitution; the state constitution prohibits religious or partisan qualifications for employment in the state’s education system. Using the Corpus of Contemporary American English (“COCA”), the Corpus of Historical American English (“COHA”) the phrase “employment in” was searched and along with other interpretive tools, it is determined that the Utah Board of Education is not part of “state’s education systems.”
Court Opinion | State v. Lantis
State v. Lantis
447 P.3d 875, 880-81 (Idaho 2019) (Supreme Court of Idaho Aug. 23, 2019).
Lantis, who sent sexually suggestive images of his ex-girlfriend to her employer in an attempt to get her fired, faces charges of misdemeanor for “disturbing the peace”. To understand the meaning of “disturbing the peace”, the Corpus of Historical American English (“COHA”) is used as additional support for other modes of statutory interpretation. It is noted that the Corpus of Founding Era American English (“COFEA”) could have been used, but because corpora should be relevant to the specific time period in question, COHA was chosen.
Court Opinion | Caesars Entertainment Corp. v. Int’l Union of Operating Engineers
Caesars Entertainment Corporation v. International Union of Operating Engineers Local 68 Pension Fund
932 F.3d 91, 95 (3rd Cir. 2019)
As part of a bargaining agreement, Appellee Caesars Entertainment Corporation (“CEC”) agreed to contribute to the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 68 Pension Fund, (“the Fund”). After closing one of their casinos, CEC decreased their contribution to the Fund and CEC is now challenged under Congress’ Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (“MPPAA”) of 1980, which imposes liability on CEC for decreasing their contributions to the Fund. To determine the extent of CEC’s liability, the Corpus of Historical American English (“COHA”) used to analyze the word “previous” around the time of the MPPAA’s enactment.
Court Opinion | Wilson v. Safelite
Wilson v. Safelite Group, Inc.
930 F.3d 429 (6th Cir. 2019) (Thapar, J., concurring).
Wilson, former president and CFO Safelite Group Inc., sues Safelite for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation as a result of alleged mismanagement of its deferred compensation plan for executive employees. To determine whether Wilson’s claims are founded, the phrase “results in a deferral of income by employees for periods extending to the termination of covered employment or beyond” from 29 U.S.C. § 1002(2)(A)(ii) is analyzed. Judge Thapar uses the Corpus of Historical American English (“COHA”) to establish a lack of evidence for interpreting the phrasal verb “results in” to mean “requires”, supporting earlier decisions. Notably, Judge Thapar speaks of corpus linguistics, remarking that “Courts should consider adding this tool to their belts.” and concedes that it “is one tool … but not the whole toolbox.”