GOLIGHTLY ET AL.

v.

MONTOYA ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Shotz v. City OF Plantation, 344 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2003)
  …s. “The first rule in statutory construction is to determine whether the ‘language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning with regard to the particular dispute.’ ” United States v. Fisher, 289 F. 3d 1329, 1337-38 (11th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1112, 123 S.Ct. 903, 154 L.Ed.2d 786 (2003) (citation omitted). “[W]e must presume that Congress said what it meant and meant what it said.” United States v. Steele, 147 F. 3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir.1998) (en banc). “In our circuit, ‘[w]hen the import of t…
• United States v. Brown, 415 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2005)
  …ext that influences — that basically requires that the structures be very similar.” His testimony is in accord with, and Brown’s contrary argument conflicts with, what we said in United States v. Fisher, 289 F. 3d 1329 (11th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1112, 123 S.Ct. 903, 154 L.Ed.2d 786 (2003). There, in rejecting a void for vagueness challenge to the Analogue Act, we stated that the fact the compound GBL converts into GHB upon ingestion means that the chemical structures of the two compounds are s…
• Fed. Election Comm'n v. Reform Party OF THE United States, 479 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2007)
  …s. “The first rule in statutory construction is to determine whether the ‘language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning with regard to the particular dispute.’ ” United States v. Fisher, 289 F. 3d 1329, 1337-38 (11th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1112, 123 S.Ct. 903, 154 L.Ed.2d 786 (2003) (citation omitted). “[W]e must presume that Congress said what it meant and meant what it said.” United States v. Steele, 147 F. 3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir.1998)(en banc). “In our circuit, ‘[w]hen the import of t…