Amalgamated Casualty Insurance v. Helms

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• opining that, “as a general rule a court may not surmise a legislative intention contrary to the plain language of a statute, nor insert or omit words to make the statute express an intention not evidenced in its original form”
• stating that “as a general rule a court may not surmise a legislative intention contrary to the plain language of a statute, nor insert or omit words to make the statute express an intention not evidenced in its original form”
• approving contractual limitations period shorter than that provided by statute of limitations
• under guise of construction, court should not rectify possible omissions and remedy possible defects in statute
• “To supply omissions” in a statute “transcends the judicial function,” quoting Iselin v. United States, 270 U.S. 245, 251, 46 S.Ct. 248, 250, 70 L.Ed. 566 (1926) (Brandéis, J.)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).