2011 (September Term)
United States v. Watson, 71 M.J. 54 (when a statute’s language is plain, the sole function of the courts, at least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd, is to enforce it according to its terms).
United States v. King, 71 M.J. 50 (unless ambiguous, the plain language of a statute will control unless it leads to an absurd result).
2010 (September Term)
United States v. Phillips, 70 M.J. 161 (in deciphering the meaning of a statute, an appellate court normally applies the common and ordinary understanding of the words in the statute).