The phrase "a plain reading of" is correct and usable in written English.
It is typically used to indicate a straightforward interpretation of a text or statement without considering any complexities or nuances.
Example: "A plain reading of the contract suggests that both parties are obligated to fulfill their duties by the end of the month."
Alternatives: "a straightforward interpretation of" or "a simple understanding of".
But Judge Marten said that Mr. Kline's advisory opinion was "contrary to a plain reading" of state law.
From a plain reading of the statute and surrounding guidance, it is clear that the question is simply whether the person holds another nationality at the date of the order depriving him of British citizenship".
At the same time, a plain reading of the account would also suggest that Mr. Obama wanted for his administration to be seen as less of a rubber stamp for Israel than the Bush administration was.
Both senators have warned for years that the government secretly claimed broader surveillance powers than a plain reading of the laws permitted, but said they were barred from elaborating because of laws protecting classified information.
But, if Trump really wasn't a party, that might amount to an outright defrauding of Clifford, who certainly could have thought, based on a plain reading of the text, that she was signing an agreement with Trump.
Mr. Wyden and Mr. Udall have for months been raising concerns that the government has secretly interpreted a part of the Patriot Act in a way that they portray as twisted, allowing the Federal Bureau of Investigation to conduct some kind of unspecified domestic surveillance that they say does not dovetail with a plain reading of the statute.
Barrister Martin McCann said: "There is nothing defamatory in either of these, on any plain reading of them.
18 41), holding that the plain reading of Article 21(4)(d) of the Statute provided for a right to defend oneself in person, this interpretation being supported by the essentially adversarial nature of the ICTY proceedings (Prosecutor v. Milošević 4 April 2003, paras. 18 20).
Written by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy, the 5-to-4 decision disregarded legal precedent, longstanding practice and the plain reading of statutory language.
