In Re the Marriage of Killman

How courts have described this case

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

• court having jurisdiction over child’s custody in dissolution proceedings did not have jurisdiction or statutory authority to change the name of the parties’ child
• When statute is clear and unambiguous, court must give effect to intention of legislature as expressed, rather than determine what law should or should not be.
• Courts “will not read [a plain] statute so as to add something not readily found in the statute.”
• court having jurisdiction over child's custody in dissolution proceedings did not have jurisdiction or statutory authority to change the name of the parties' child
• Courts \will not read [a plain] statute so as to add something not readily found in the statute.\
• when legislative intent is in question, we can presume that when the legislature expressly includes specific terms, it intends to exclude any items not expressly included in the specific fist

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).