State v. Ahitow

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that former and more recent versions of a statute may be considered in “determining the intention of the legislature when it uses an ambiguous term” (emphasis added)
• stating \any material change in the language of a statute is presumed to alter the law\
• stating “any material change in the language of a statute is presumed to alter the law”
• interpreting a similar State statute as requiring that the defendant initiate contact with the police
• defining “keep” as “to maintain habitually by undertaking the expense of ... to continue to maintain” and “to have the care of : be responsible for : tend” (emphasis added)
• “We do not interpret statutes in a way that makes portions of them irrelevant or redundant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).