Leslie v. Board of Appeals

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that \[w]e may resort to legal or other well accepted dictionaries as one way to determine the ordinary meaning of certain terms not statutorily defined\
• noting that “[w]e may resort to legal or other well accepted dictionaries as one way to determine the ordinary meaning of certain terms not statutorily defined”
• stating that when a term is not statutorily defined, courts “may resort to legal or other well accepted dictionaries as one way to determine the ordinary meaning of [the term]” (internal quotation marks omitted
• noting that the use of the term “shall” indicates mandatory language
• stating that \[d]eparture from the literal construction of a statute is justified only if such a construction yields an absurd and unjust result obviously inconsistent with the purposes and policies of the statute\ (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)
• stating that “[d]eparture from the literal construction of a statute is justified only if such a construction yields an absurd and unjust result obviously inconsistent with the purposes and policies of the statute” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).