Zinone v. LEE'S CROSSING HOMEOWNERS ASS'N

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that when an enactment uses “specific language in one instance, but omits that language or uses different language when addressing a similar subject elsewhere . . . , we must presume that the difference in the choice of language was intentional”
• comparing statutes to determine legislative intent and “presum[ing] that the difference in the choice of language was intentional”
• “We . . . presume the legislature chose, with care, the words it used when it enacted the relevant statute.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• “[W]hen the General Assembly has used specific language in one instance, but omits that language or uses different language when addressing a similar subject elsewhere in the Code, we must presume that the difference in the choice of language was intentional.”
• “[W]hen the General Assembly has used specific language in one instance but omits language or uses different language when addressing a similar subject elsewhere in the Code, we must presume that the difference in the choice of language was intentional.”
• “[W]hen the General Assembly has used specific language in one instance but omits language or uses different language when addressing a similar subject elsewhere in the Code, we must presume that the difference in the choice of language was intentional.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).