General Motors Corp. v. Darling's

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that \we . . . will only look behind the plain language to the legislative history if we find the statute ambiguous\ (internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that the court was \obliged to give effect to the [Supreme Judicial Court]'s authoritative construction of the Maine statute\
• noting that the court was “obliged to give effect to the [Supreme Judicial Court]’s authoritative construction of the Maine statute”
• explaining that a determination of statutory ambiguity is not limited to the four corners of a statute, but includes instances where the statute in question allows for more than one reasonable interpretation
• “Absent a clear mandate from the legislature, we are disinclined to unnecessarily interfere with the bargains that have been struck between the manufacturers and their distributors.” (citation omitted)
• “[W]e ‘avoid statutory constructions that create absurd, illogical or inconsistent results.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).