Neal v. Wilkes

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that whichever lost-opportunity formula benefits the plaintiff the most in any particular case is the correct formula to be utilized
• “riding an ATV . . . is an outdoor recreational use . . . within the meaning of the RUA”
• \Plaintiff . . . is adding words to the act that simply are not there.\
• The task in construing a statute is to discern and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.
• \Plaintiff . . . is adding words to the act that simply are not there.\
• \[N]either 'legislative acquiescence' nor the 'reenactment doctrine' may 'be utilized to subordinate the plain language of a statute.'\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Neal v. Wilkes

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Neal v. Wilkes
  Michigan Supreme Court· 2004-09-14