green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
8.6 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
"If a statute is to make sense, it must be read in light of some assumed purpose."
Treatment trajectory · 1934 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1934
1980
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Lanier v. State
if a statute is to make sense, it must be read in light of some assumed purpose.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Victor Villanueva v. State of Florida
Armstrong v. City of Edgewater, 157 So. 2d 422, 425 (Fla. 1963) (citing Haworth v. Chapman, 152 So. 663, 666 (Fla. 1933) (explaining that courts should supply an omission only when the omission is “palpable,” the omitted word is “plainly indicated by the context,” and when necessary to make the statute conform to the Legislature’s obvious intent; but where “legislative intent cannot be accurately - 10 - determined because of the omission, the Court cannot add words to express what might or might not be intended”)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Victor Villanueva v. State of Florida
(2×)
Armstrong v. City of Edgewater, 157 So. 2d 422, 425 (Fla. 1963) (citing Haworth v. Chapman, 152 So. 663, 666 (Fla. 1933) (explaining that courts should supply an omission only when the omission is “palpable,” the omitted word is “plainly indicated by the context,” and when necessary to make the statute conform to the Legislature’s obvious intent; but where “legislative intent cannot be accurately - 10 - determined because of the omission, the Court cannot add words to express what might or might not be intended”)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kasischke v. State
Petersburg v. Siebold, 48 So.2d 291, 294 (Fla.1950) ("The courts *814 will not ascribe to the Legislature an intent to create absurd ... consequences, and so an interpretation avoiding absurdity is always preferred."); Haworth v. Chapman, 113 Fla. 591 , 152 So. 663, 665 (Fla.1933) ("There is a strong presumption against absurdity in a statutory provision; it being unreasonable to suppose that the Legislature intended their own stultification....").
discussed
Cited "see"
Greenberg v. Cardiology Surgical Ass'n
See generally Haworth v. Chapman, 113 Fla. 591 , 152 So. 663 (1933). "[A] basic rule of statutory construction provides that the Legislature does not intend to enact useless provisions, and courts should avoid readings that would render part of a statute meaningless." State v. Goode, 830 So.2d 817 (Fla. 2002).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ida Goldberg by Her Next Friend, George Goldberg
v.
M. A. Smith as Liquidator of Trust Co. of Fla., a Florida Corporation, as Successor Trustee
v.
M. A. Smith as Liquidator of Trust Co. of Fla., a Florida Corporation, as Successor Trustee
Appeal dismissed on motion of counsel for Appellants.