M'Rika Armstrong v. Hilaire Armstrong (Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court: CV-22-900249).

How courts have described this case

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

• “[C]ourts cannot assume that the Legislature inadvertently omitted from one statute the language that it placed in another statute.”
• “[C]ourts cannot assume that the Legislature inadvertently omitted from one statute the language that it placed in another statute . . . .”
• “Obiter dicta are not binding precedent. Instead, they are statements that are unnecessary to determine the case at hand and, thus, lack the force of an adjudication.”
• “Obiter dicta are not binding precedent. Instead, they are statements that are unnecessary to determine the case at hand and, thus, lack the force of an adjudication.”
• “[W]hen language is included in one section of a statute but omitted from another section, it is presumed that the drafters acted intentionally and purposely in their inclusion or exclusion.”
• “Generally, when language is included in one section of a statute but omitted from another section, it is presumed that the drafters acted intentionally and purposely in their inclusion or exclusion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).