Kushell v. Department of Natural Resources

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[statutory text ‘ “should be read so that no word, clause, sentence or phrase is rendered superfluous or nugatory.” ’ ”
• noting that “[a] court may neither add nor delete language so as to reflect intent not evidenced in the plain and unambiguous language” of a statute or regulation
• noting that statutory text should be read so that no word, clause, sentence, or phrase is rendered superfluous but rather with an eye towards harmonizing multiple provisions within the statutory scheme
• explaining that when determining legislative intent, we “analyze [a] statutory scheme as a whole and attempt to harmonize provisions dealing with the same subject so that each may be given effect”
• “The plain language of a [constitutional] provision is not interpreted in isolation. Rather, [the Court] analyze[s] the provision as a whole”
• “Statutory construction begins with the plain language of the statute, and ordinary, popular understanding of the English language dictates interpretation of its terminology.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).