McCoy v. VanKirk

How courts have described this case

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

• “[W]hen a statute’s language is ambiguous, a court often must venture into extratextual territory in order to distill an appropriate construction.” (internal quotations and citation omitted)
• the title of an act is sufficient if it states the general theme or purpose of the statute and the substance is germane to the object expressed in the title
• “ ‘Every reasonable construction must be resorted to by the courts in order to sustain constitutionality, and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of the legislative enactment in question.’ ”
• “[W]hen a statute’s language is ambiguous, a court often must venture into extratextual territory in order to distill an appropriate construction.” (quoting State ex rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac–Buick, Inc., 194 W.Va. 770, 777, 461 S.E.2d 516, 523 (1995)
• “A title must, at a minimum, furnish a ‘pointer’ to the challenged provision in the act. The test to be applied is whether the title imparts enough information to one interested in the subject matter to provoke a reading of the act.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).