Quinney v. Pittman

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the legislature “was aware of the difference between the words ‘residency’ and ‘domicile’”
• holding a statute using present tense verb permitted the plaintiff to file suit in the county of his residence “at the time of the filing of the complaint”
• noting that, where the venue statute provides that an action for fraud could be brought in the county “where any one plaintiff resides,” the use of the present tense “indicates residency at the time the suit is filed”
• it is this court’s fundamental duty to give effect to the legislative purpose set by the venue statutes
• where language of statute is certain and the intent obvious, Supreme Court may not resort to search of the title
• where language of statute is certain and the intent obvious, Supreme Court may not resort to search of the title

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).