Franczak v. Franczak

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the recreational in-channel diversion (“RICD”) statute requires water courts to determine the amount of water necessary for a “reasonable recreation experience”
• instructing the water court not to take “at face value” the assertions of an applicant in quantifying the amount of water needed for a “reasonable recreation experience”
• court must interpret statute as a whole to give it consistent, sensible, harmonious effect
• “[W]hen examining a statute’s plain language, we give effect to every word and render none superfluous because ‘[w]e do not presume that the legislature used language “idly and with no intent that meaning should be given to its language.”’”
• court must interpret statutory provisions as a whole and avoid illogical results
• reviewing RICD appropriation procedures in detail

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).