Brooke B. v. Donald Ray C., II

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that courts may not “eliminate through judicial interpretation words that were purposely included”
• “[i]t is not for this Court to arbitrarily read into a statute that which it does not say.”
• “Our rules of statutory construction do not permit us to disregard a statute without legislative direction to do so.”
• “A statute, or an administrative rule, may not, under the guise of ‘interpretation,’ be modified, revised, amended or rewritten.”
• “‘Cases involving children must be decided not just in the context of competing sets of adults’ rights, but also with a regard for the rights of the child(ren).’ Syllabus Point 7, In re Brian D., 194 W. Va. 623, 461 S.E.2d 129 (1995).”
• “It is not for this Court arbitrarily to read into a statute that which it does not say. Just as courts are not to eliminate through judicial interpretation words that were purposely included, we are obliged not to add to statutes something the Legislature purposely omitted.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).