People v. Andrew B.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing “the fundamental principle of statutory construction that this court cannot read into the statute additional elements not intended by the legislature”
• noting that a court may not read into a statute “additional elements not intended by the legislature”
• pointing to the increasing number of cases in which appellate courts have \expressed serious concerns with the State's failure to adhere to the [Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities] Code's procedural safeguards\
• pointing to the increasing number of cases in which appellate courts have “expressed serious concerns with the State’s failure to adhere to the [Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities] Code’s procedural safeguards”
• pointing to the increasing number of cases in which appellate courts have \expressed serious concerns with the State's failure to adhere to the [Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities] Code's procedural safeguards\
• “second element [of public interest exception] is satisfied because our appellate court is divided on the issue”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).