Potter v. Vanderpool

How courts have described this case

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

• stating court may not “insert[ ] words into the rule that do not exist.”
• stating we will not inseid; words into the rale that do not exist, and will presume supreme court would have explicitly stated that a provision applied if it intended to include it in the rule
• when judge “err[s] as a matter of law” he abuses discretion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).