Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Michigan Supreme Court· 6/12/2002

Koontz v. Ameritech Services, Inc

Citations

  • 645 N.W.2d 34
  • 466 Mich. 304

How courts have described this case

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

  • stating that a court “may consult dictionary definitions” to help ascertain the meaning of terms not defined in the statute
  • “A word is not rendered ambiguous . . . merely because a dictionary defines it in a variety of ways.”
  • “We do not apply preferential rules of statutory interpretation, however, without first discovering an ambiguity and attempting to discern the legislative intent underlying the ambiguous words.”
  • “Courts must give effect to every word, phrase, and clause in a statute, and must avoid an interpretation that would render any part of the statute surplusage or nugatory.”
  • \Issues of statutory interpretation are questions of law that we review de novo.\
  • “[A] word or phrase is given meaning by its context or setting.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cavanagh, Kelly, Weaver, Taylor, Young, Corrigan, Markman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

188 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Koontz v. Ameritech Services, Inc

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.