Condon v. Haitsma

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that \Legislature is presumed to be aware of 'preexisting law and the decisions of this court' \
• “it . . . must be presumed the Legislature knew preexisting law and the decisions of this court”
• “Legislature must be presumed to have meant what the words plainly say, and it also must be presumed that the Legislature knew preexisting law and the decisions of this court”
• “Legislature must be presumed to have meant what the words plainly say, and it also must be presumed that the Legislature knew preexisting law and the decisions of this court”
• Legislature presumed to know preexisting law and decisions of this court
• presumption that “Legislature knew preexisting law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).