FORD MOTOR CO. ET AL.

v.

MCCAULEY ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Williams, 340 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2003)
  …ation of the law should be given only “due deference.” This deliberate variation in terminology within the same sentence of a statute suggests that Congress did not interpret the two terms as being equivalent. See United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71, 123 S.Ct. 584, 587 n. 4, 154 L.Ed.2d 483, 489 n. 4 (2002) (“The use of different words within related statutes generally implies that different meanings were intended.” (quoting 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 46.06, at 194 (6th…
• Lindo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 652 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2011)
  …refrain from concluding here that the differing language in the two subsections has the same meaning in each. We would not presume to ascribe this difference to a simple mistake in draftsmanship.”); cf. United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71, 76 n. 4, 123 S.Ct. 584, 587 n. 4, 154 L.Ed.2d 483 (2002) (“ 'The use of different words within related statutes generally implies that different meanings were intended.’ ” (quoting 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 46.06, at 194 (6th ed. 2…
• U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. BIG Apple Consulting USA, Inc., 783 F.3d 786 (11th Cir. 2015)
  …3, 228, 113 S.Ct. 2050, 124 L.Ed.2d 138 (1993). The Supreme Court has also recognized that “[t]he use of different terms within related statutes generally implies that different meanings were intended.” United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71, 76 n. 4, 123 S.Ct. 584, 154 L.Ed.2d 483 (2002). We have not yet addressed the definition of “by means of’ in § 17(a)(2), but we agree with the First Circuit that “the text suggests that ... it is irrelevant for purposes of liability whether the seller uses his own false…