Appeal of Vaux

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that where certain items are specifically designated in a statute, all omissions should be understood as exclusions
• court may not add words or phrases to statute where the legislature failed to do so
• court will not add other non-monetary remuneration to the calculation of a claimant's average weekly wage where the Act only specifically provides for room and board
• a court cannot supply an apparent omission in a statute even though it appears that the omission resulted from the legislature's failure to foresee or contemplate a case in question
• a court cannot supply an apparent omission in a statute even though it appears that the omission resulted from the legislature’s failure to foresee or contemplate a case in question
• where statute authorizing reduction of benefits mentioned only columns “A” through “D” on the relevant benefit table, the court refused to assume that the legislature intended also to include column “E”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).