Riedel v. Driscoll ex rel. Driscoll

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that, when a statute is clear and unambiguous the Court gives the words in the statute their plain and ordinary meaning
• collecting cases supporting the proposition that the Court cannot “contort the language of an unambiguous statute”
• “It is well established that [w]hen * * * a statute does not define a word, courts will often apply a common meaning as provided by a recognized dictionary.”
• \It is not our role to contort the language of an unambiguous statute in order to include within its reach a situation which it plainly does not encompass.\
• “It is well established that [w]hen * * * a statute does not define a word, courts will often apply a common meaning as provided by a recognized dictionary.”
• “It is not our role to contort the language - 16 - of an unambiguous statute in order to include within its reach a situation which it plainly does not encompass.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).