Amos, Nicholas Davell

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that, because there were at least two reasonable interpretations of a term in a statute, the statute was ambiguous and it was appropriate to consider rules of statutory construction to ascertain the intent of the rule
• declining to address argument that statute was unconstitutional as applied to appellant where issue could be resolved on other grounds
• “Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, courts give effect to the statute as written, without engaging in statutory construction.” (quoting Curlee v. Kootenai Cnty. Fire & Rescue, 148 Idaho 391, 398, 224 P.3d 458, 465 (2008))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).