People v. Maggette

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, where language is used in different sections of the same legislative act, the terms have the same meaning throughout the statute, unless contrary legislative intent is clearly expressed
• holding that, where language is used in different sections of the same legislative act, the terms have the same meaning throughout the statute, unless contrary legislative intent is clearly expressed
• recognizing that “the legislature has the power to define ‘sexual penetration’ more broadly than its common and ordinary meaning” and that the statutory definition of “sexual penetration” in section 12- 12(f
• holding that, where language is used in different sections of the same legislative act, the terms have the same meaning throughout the statute, unless contrary legislative intent is clearly expressed
• holding that, where language is used in different sections of the same legislative act, the terms have the same meaning throughout the statute, unless contrary legislative intent is clearly expressed
• observing that “[a] court must consider the entire statute and interpret each of its relevant parts together”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).