Emerald PUD v. PP & L

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a state agency had the power to act in eminent domain when the statute “clearly” granted that power to the agency
• noting that, “when the legislature includes an express provision in one statute but omits such a provision in another statute, it may be inferred that such an omission was deliberate” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• finding that the legislature’s addi- tion of the term “public utility district” to one provision of a statute, but not to another similar provision, indicated that the term’s omission in the similar provision was deliberate
• use of a term in one section and not in another section of the same statute indicates a purposeful omission
• use of a term in one section and not in another section of the same statute indicates a purposeful omission
• “ ‘Ordinarily, when the legislature includes an express provision in one statute but omits such a provision in another statute, it may be inferred that such an omission was deliberate.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).