counsel admitted this was something "that didn’t come up in our examination of the witnesses.” 2 .Accord, Bonner v. Henderson, 147 F.3d 457, 459 (5th Cir.1998); Firestone v. Galbreath, 976 F.2d 279, 284 (6th Cir.1992); Coverdell v. Mid-South Farm Equip. Assoc., 335 F.2d 9, 13-14 (6th Cir.1964); Moeller v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.4th 1124, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 317, 947 P.2d 279, 283 n. 3 (1997); Western Life Trust v. State, 536 N.W.2d 709, 712 (N.D.1995); Courtemanche v. Bibbo, 2004 WL 2820943 at *4 (R.I.2004); Morrison v. Lennett, 415 Mass. 857, 616 N.E.2d 92, 94 (1993). 3 . See also BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1000 (8th ed. 2004) ("In dozens of cases, courts have held may’ to be synonymous with ’shall’ or ‘must.’ ”). 4 . See City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne, 111 S.W.3d 22, 25
holding that courts must give effect to every word when interpreting a statute holding legislative intent is determined by reading statute as a whole and interpreting it to give effect to all and not just isolated portions holding that when interpreting a statute or regulation courts must read the provisions of the law as a whole and in context holding courts must adhere to legislative intent when interpreting a statute holding that where congressional intent is clear a court must give effect to such intent