plain language rule in North Carolina

2015Using a plain language analysis, see State v. Largent, 197 N.C.App. 614 , 618, 677 S.E.2d 514 , 517 (2009) ("Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous there is no room for judicial construction and *122 the courts must give it its plain and definite meaning, and the courts are without power to interpolate, or superimpose, provisions and limitations not contained therein.") (citation and quotation marks omitted), North Carolina General Statute § 14-208.18(a)(2) does not require that the offense for which defendant registered have an element requiring the victim to be under 16 yea

2015Using a plain language analysis, see State v. Largent, 197 N.C.App. 614 , 618, 677 S.E.2d 514 , 517 (2009) ("Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous there is no room for judicial construction and *122 the courts must give it its plain and definite meaning, and the courts are without power to interpolate, or superimpose, provisions and limitations not contained therein.") (citation and quotation marks omitted), North Carolina General Statute § 14-208.18(a)(2) does not require that the offense for which defendant registered have an element requiring the victim to be under 16 yea

2009Although the Court concluded that "[i]n light of the plain language of the rule, the title of the act, and the legislative intent ..., it appears review must occur before filing to withstand dismissal[,]" id. (emphasis added), the Court also concluded that "once a party receives and exhausts the 120-day extension of time in order to comply with Rule 9(j)'s expert certification requirement, the party cannot amend a medical malpractice complaint to include expert certification." Id. at 205 , 558 S.E.2d at 167 (emphasis added).

2009Although the Court concluded that "[i]n light of the plain language of the rule, the title of the act, and the legislative intent ..., it appears review must occur before filing to withstand dismissal[,]" id. (emphasis added), the Court also concluded that "once a party receives and exhausts the 120-day extension of time in order to comply with Rule 9(j)'s expert certification requirement, the party cannot amend a medical malpractice complaint to include expert certification." Id. at 205 , 558 S.E.2d at 167 (emphasis added).

1996According, however, to the plain language of that rule, see State v. Wiggins, 272 N.C. 147, 153 , 158 S.E.2d 37, 42 (1967) (words in unambiguous statutes are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1028 , 88 S.Ct. 1418 , 20 *530 L.Ed.2d 285 (1968), the prior sexual conduct which is deemed relevant is that between the complainant and the defendant, who is on trial.

1996According, however, to the plain language of that rule, see State v. Wiggins, 272 N.C. 147, 153 , 158 S.E.2d 37, 42 (1967) (words in unambiguous statutes are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1028 , 88 S.Ct. 1418 , 20 *530 L.Ed.2d 285 (1968), the prior sexual conduct which is deemed relevant is that between the complainant and the defendant, who is on trial.

1992Servs., Inc., 836 F.2d 866, 874 (5th Cir. 1988) (“Like a snapshot, Rule 11 review focuses upon the instant when the picture is taken — when the signature is placed on the document.”); Oliveri v. Thompson, 803 F.2d 1265, 1274 (2d Cir. 1986) (“Limiting the application of rule 11 to testing the attorney’s conduct at the time a paper is signed is virtually mandated by the plain language of the rule.”), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 918 , 94 L.

1992Servs., Inc., 836 F.2d 866, 874 (5th Cir. 1988) (“Like a snapshot, Rule 11 review focuses upon the instant when the picture is taken — when the signature is placed on the document.”); Oliveri v. Thompson, 803 F.2d 1265, 1274 (2d Cir. 1986) (“Limiting the application of rule 11 to testing the attorney’s conduct at the time a paper is signed is virtually mandated by the plain language of the rule.”), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 918 , 94 L.