Daniels v. Florida Dept. of Health

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that if the language is plain and unambiguous it is unnecessary to resort to statutory construction
• recognizing that when a statute is clear and unambiguous, a court may not resort to rules of statutory construction, and the “statute must be given its plain and obvious meaning”
• explaining that statutes “in abrogation of the common law . . . are to be strictly construed”
• stating that if a statute is clear and unambiguous, the court must honor its plain language and avoid resorting to rules of statutory construction
• holding when the statutory language is clear, courts have no occasion to resort to rules of construction; they must read the statute as written, for to do otherwise would constitute an abrogation of legislative power
• observing: “When the statute is clear and unambiguous, courts will not look behind the statute's plain language for 10 legislative intent or resort to rules of statutory construction to ascertain intent.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).