Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/850318.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
Full Text
1,775 charsreport was created not before Congress voted on the Act but, rather, after the votes had been cast. Thus, no member of Congress voted in reliance on or in confirmation of the assertion of arguable intent contained within the report. Furthermore, the CRS report does not express the proposition that the CARES Act requires 30 days’ notice for all covered dwelling evictions. Indeed, it does not state or present argument or analysis that such is the correct—and only—interpretation of section 4024. Rather, it merely declares that it is arguable whether the CARES Act does as much. That an interpretation of a statute is 19 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 85031-8-I/20 arguable does not signify that it is correct, accurate, or even creates ambiguity. Smith, 22 Wn. App. 2d at 507 (a statute is not ambiguous merely because of different conceivable interpretations (quoting Bennett, 166 Wn. App. at 483-84)). In the end, the report merely sets forth a postenactment interpretation of Section 4024 that an argument that could be made for a broader interpretation thereof. As analyzed herein, such an interpretation does not withstand closer scrutiny. Thus, the CRS report does not reflect Congress’s intent, expressly endorse a broader interpretation of Section 4024, or align with text and statutory context of the CARES Act. Accordingly, the CRS report is unpersuasive. Furthermore, if we were to consider the CRS report, we would also consider Congress’s enactments in the months following the passage of the CARES Act. As discussed below, we find those enactments to be a more reliable basis for legislative intent than the CRS report. As set forth above, in March 2020, the 116th Congress passed the