Spirit & Truth Church v. Barnaby

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the insurer’s “cancellation [of the policy] was effective regardless of [the premium finance company’s] failure to comply with the statutory notice requirements”
• stating that “our 181 legislators—who may have had 181 different motives, reasons, and understandings—nowhere codified an agreed purpose”
• holding courts are required to be \sticklers\ when construing a statute, \not rewriting statutes under the guise of interpreting them\
• noting that “we read unambiguous statutes as written, ‘not as they make the most policy sense’ ” (quoting Combs v. Health Care Servs. Corp., 401 S.W.3d 623, 629 (Tex. 2013))
• stating that it is “the court’s singular duty to interpret the laws”
• noting that lawmakers have codified substantial compliance throughout numerous categories oflegislation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).