In Re Review of Proposed Town of New Shoreham Project

How courts have described this case

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

• admonishing the petitioners for “cherrypick[ing] and then cobbl[ing] together the overarching policy goals for the Town of New Shoreham Project to form what they allege is a * * * mandate for the 2010 PPA”
• “When, as is the case here, a statute does not define a word, courts will often apply a common meaning as provided by a recognized dictionary.”
• “To ascertain a statute’s meaning, we are mindful that our ultimate goal is to give effect to the General Assembly’s intent.”
• “[A]ny other interpretation by this Court would impermissibly read purposefully unwritten words into the statute’s meaning and subvert the Legislature’s clear intention * * *.”
• “When, as is the case here, a statute does not define a word, courts will often apply a common meaning as provided by a recognized dictionary.”
• “Where the Legislature includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same act, it is generally presumed that the Legislature acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.” (brackets omitted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).