...result of an oral contract. 1 "It is a familiar rule, that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the STEVENS, J., dissenting 458 US Qualifying language in 46 USC §596 supports a much narrower construction...

...to the clear intent of Congress: It is a familiar rule, that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not...its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers. ... If a literal construction of the words be absurd, the Act '.,iust be construed to avoid the absurdity.79...

...to the language of the PDA, "[i]t is a 'familiar rule, that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not...spirit, nor within the intention of its makers.'" Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 US 193,201 (1979) (quoting Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States,...

...F. 2d 212, 219 (DC Cir. 1939). "It is a familiar rule, that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor the intention of its makers," Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 US 457 (1892), and "all laws...

...the statute. The Court reasoned from the familiar rule "that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not...within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers."29 The Court substantially relied on the statute's legislative history (mainly a committee...

...at 459-62. "It is a familiar rule that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet aot within the statute, because not within its spirit nor within the intention of its makers." Id. at 459. For a brief discussion of the "equity of a statute" see note 280, supra. 398 143 US. at...

...legislative history to the contrary. "It is a familiar rule, that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not...its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers." Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 US 457, 459, 12 S.Ct. 511, 512, 36 L.Ed. 226 (1892)....

...century ago the Supreme Court stated the "familiar rule that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not...within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers."27 This language has been cited many times by the Supreme Court in recent years, most notably...

...statute to exclude the rector. The Court argued "that a thing may be within the letter of the statute yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers." The main evidence of a contrary legislative intent was language in a committee report indicating that...

...familiar, if overused, rule of statutory construction that "a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not...within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers."11 But here the repudiation of all voluntary affirmative action was within both the intent...