Court of Appeals of Maryland· 12/13/2005

Stanley v. State

Citations

887 A.2d 1078
390 Md. 175
2005 Md. LEXIS 739

How courts have described this case

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

reasoning that the court may not “construe the statute with forced or subtle interpretations that limit or extend its application”
revisor’s note indicating that the change was made without substantive change does not override the fact the amendment “radically changes” the effect of the statute
“[W]hen the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, ‘the resort to legislative history is a confirmatory process; it is not undertaken to contradict the plain meaning of the statute[.]’”
“Even if it may be, to us, illogical and irrational, there is no basis for the Court to refuse to give effect to the clear direction of the General Assembly.”
“ ‘Where the statutory language is free from ... ambiguity, courts will neither look beyond the words of the statute itself to determine legislative intent nor add to or delete words from the statute.’ ”
“It is a well settled canon of statutory construction that we should . . . give effect to all of the language and avoid a construction that renders any portion superfluous.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bell

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

31 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.