pari materia requires the courts doctrine (Florida) · Go Syfert
← Florida issues

pari materia requires the courts doctrine in Florida

6 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2013 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
McGhee v. Volusia Countygreen
fla · 1996 · cited in 5 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2001–2013
2 sentences

2013See, e.g., McGhee v. Volusia County, 679 So.2d 729 , 730 n. 1 (Fla.1996) (“The doctrine of in pari materia requires the courts to construe related statutes together so that they illuminate each other and are harmonized.”); Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist., 604 So.2d 452, 455 (Fla.1992) (“[A]ll parts of a statute must be read together in order to achieve a consistent whole.”).

2008However, this Court has also stated that related statutory provisions should be read together to determine legislative intent, so that "if from a view of the whole law, or from other laws in pari materia the evident intent is different from the literal import of the terms employed to express it in a particular part of the law, that intent should prevail, for that, in fact is the will of the Legislature." Id. (quoting Forsythe, 604 So.2d at 454 ); see also McGhee v. Volusia County, 679 So.2d 729 , 730 n. 1 (Fla. 1996) ("The doctrine of in pari materia requires the courts to construe related sta

55
Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosiongreen
fla · 1992 · cited in 5 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2001–2013
2 sentences

2013See, e.g., McGhee v. Volusia County, 679 So.2d 729 , 730 n. 1 (Fla.1996) (“The doctrine of in pari materia requires the courts to construe related statutes together so that they illuminate each other and are harmonized.”); Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist., 604 So.2d 452, 455 (Fla.1992) (“[A]ll parts of a statute must be read together in order to achieve a consistent whole.”).

2008However, this Court has also stated that related statutory provisions should be read together to determine legislative intent, so that "if from a view of the whole law, or from other laws in pari materia the evident intent is different from the literal import of the terms employed to express it in a particular part of the law, that intent should prevail, for that, in fact is the will of the Legislature." Id. (quoting Forsythe, 604 So.2d at 454 ); see also McGhee v. Volusia County, 679 So.2d 729 , 730 n. 1 (Fla. 1996) ("The doctrine of in pari materia requires the courts to construe related sta

35
Holly v. Auldgreen
fla · 1984 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2006–2008
2 sentences

2008Moreover, "a literal interpretation of the language of a statute need not be given when to do so would lead to an unreasonable or ridiculous conclusion." Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 219 (Fla.1984).

2006Moreover, "a literal interpretation of the language of a statute need not be given when to do so would lead to an unreasonable or ridiculous conclusion." Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 219 (Fla. 1984).

22
Singleton v. Larsongreen
fla · 1950 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
1 sentence

1996See Singleton v. Larson, 46 So.2d 186 (Fla.1950).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Bradford v. State green
fladistctapp · 1999
1 sentence

2001In this respect, the district court below reasoned that "[w]hen reading subsection (8) [which does not include fraud as an element] in pari materia with subsection (1)(a) [which does include fraud as an element], it becomes obvious that the Legislature in enacting subsection (8) intended to punish only solicitations made for the sole purpose of defrauding that patient's PIP insurer." Bradford, 740 So.2d at 571 .

12001–2001

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check