Clymer v. Webster

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that parents of adult child may recover for loss of comfort and companionship of adult child where they were next of kin under WDA
• stating that the canon should “be applied with great caution” as it is “not conclusive as to the meaning of a statute” (quotation omitted)
• declining to apply canons of statutory construction strictly when they did not accurately identify the statute’s purpose
• noting Texas, Idaho, Illinois, Minnesota and Arizona draw no distinction in awarding damages for loss of companionship between adult and minor children
• listing factors, including living arrangement of parties, harmony of family relations, and commonality of interests and activities for determining damages for loss of companionship
• maxim of expressio unius should be applied with caution and is not conclusive as to statute's meaning

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).