Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(18)
"No references are made to state law in this statute".
We see no risk to insurance companies in this statute.
So isn't, doesn't there have to be a judgment inherent in this statute?
The scienter requirement in this statute does not, as McFadden suggests, render the statute vague.
We perceive no additional difficulties in this statute, if applicable as assumed.
Virginia's interest in this statute lies in preventing commercial exploitation of the health needs of its citizens.
Similar(42)
In this connection we cannot be unmindful that Congress in enacting this statute plainly indicated its purpose to leave local business to the protection of the states.
We hold that in enacting this statute Congress did not run afoul of the federalism principles enunciated in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), and Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).
The way in which this statute satisfies the test is on the basis of the factors that I have identified.
The fair inference from all this is that congress, in passing this statute considered some of the grants as being of the character to which the limitation applied, and did not so consider others, though they included immense areas.
Of course, even if the term was not that expansively defined at common law, we have held that Congress went beyond the common-law definitions in enacting this statute.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com