Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Rhode Island opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Kaya v. Partingtongreen2 sentences2007The plain meaning rule need not be adhered to when it would bring about "an absurd result.” Kaya v. Partington, 681 A.2d 256, 261 (R.I.1996). 2007Similarly, we have no occasion to address the applicability vel non of the Defense of Marriage Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738C (2000). 15 The plain meaning rule need not be adhered to when it would bring about "an absurd result." Kaya v. Partington , 681 A.2d 256 , 261 (R.I. 1996). | 4 | 4 |
LaPlante v. Honda North America, Inc.green2 sentences2005As we stated very recently in the case of State v. Santos, 870 A.2d 1029 (R.I.2005): "[I]n abiding by the plain meaning rule, we remain mindful of the corollary principle that we 'will not construe a statute to reach an absurd result.' " Id. at 1032 n. 5 (quoting Kaya v. Partington, 681 A.2d 256, 261 (R.I.1996)); see also LaPlante v. Honda North America, Inc., 697 A.2d 625, 628 (R.I.1997) ("[T]his Court will adopt a construction that avoids an absurd or unjust result.”); Berthiaume v. School Committee of Woonsocket, 121 R.I. 243, 247 , 397 A.2d 889, 892 (1979) ("[W]e adhere to the canon that s 2005Of course, in abiding by the plain meaning rule, we remain mindful of the corollary principle that we “will not construe a statute to reach an absurd result.” Kay a v. Partington, 681 A.2d 256, 261 (R.I.1996); see also LaPlante v. Honda North America, Inc., 697 A.2d 625, 628 (R.I.1997) (”[T]his Court will adopt a construction that avoids an absurd or unjust result.”). . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Oliveiragreen2 sentences2017See State v. Oliveira, 882 A.2d 1097, 1110 (R.I. 2005) (“It is well settled that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, [we] must interpret the statute literally and must give the words of the statute their plain and ordinary meanings.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Hough v. McKiernan, 108 A.3d 1030, 1035 (R.I. 2015). 2017See State v. Oliveira, 882 A.2d 1097, 1110 (R.I. 2005) (“It is well settled that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, [we] must interpret the statute literally and must give the words of the statute their plain and ordinary meanings.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Hough v. McKiernan, 108 A.3d 1030, 1035 (R.I. 2015). | 1 | 1 |
Kevin R. Hough v. Shawn P. McKiernangreen2 sentences2017See State v. Oliveira, 882 A.2d 1097, 1110 (R.I. 2005) (“It is well settled that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, [we] must interpret the statute literally and must give the words of the statute their plain and ordinary meanings.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Hough v. McKiernan, 108 A.3d 1030, 1035 (R.I. 2015). 2017See State v. Oliveira, 882 A.2d 1097, 1110 (R.I. 2005) (“It is well settled that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, [we] must interpret the statute literally and must give the words of the statute their plain and ordinary meanings.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Hough v. McKiernan, 108 A.3d 1030, 1035 (R.I. 2015). | 1 | 1 |
In the Matter of Marie ERICKSON, Debtor-Appellee. Appeal of DORCHESTER STATE BANKgreen2 sentences2006Judge Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit has provided an instructive example relative to the need to consider context when interpreting language: “If someone at a dinner party says: ‘Pull up a chair to the table’, he means a table chair and not an overstaffed easy chair, even though both are called chairs.” In the Matter of Erickson, 815 F.2d 1090, 1092 (7th Cir.1987). 14 In my opinion, the term “department” is not unambiguous in the context presented here, and therefore the “plain meaning rule” is inapplicable. 2006Judge Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit has provided an instructive example relative to the need to consider context when interpreting language: "If someone at a dinner party says: `Pull up a chair to the table', he means a table chair and not an overstuffed easy chair, even though both are called chairs." In the Matter of Erickson, 815 F.2d 1090, 1092 (7th Cir.1987). [14] *136 In my opinion, the term "department" is not unambiguous in the context presented here, and therefore the "plain meaning rule" is inapplicable. | 1 | 1 |
Berthiaume v. SCHOOL COM. OF CITY OF WOONSOCKETgreen2 sentences2005As we stated very recently in the case of State v. Santos, 870 A.2d 1029 (R.I.2005): "[I]n abiding by the plain meaning rule, we remain mindful of the corollary principle that we 'will not construe a statute to reach an absurd result.' " Id. at 1032 n. 5 (quoting Kaya v. Partington, 681 A.2d 256, 261 (R.I.1996)); see also LaPlante v. Honda North America, Inc., 697 A.2d 625, 628 (R.I.1997) ("[T]his Court will adopt a construction that avoids an absurd or unjust result.”); Berthiaume v. School Committee of Woonsocket, 121 R.I. 243, 247 , 397 A.2d 889, 892 (1979) ("[W]e adhere to the canon that s 2005As we stated very recently in the case of State v. Santos, 870 A.2d 1029 (R.I.2005): "[I]n abiding by the plain meaning rule, we remain mindful of the corollary principle that we 'will not construe a statute to reach an absurd result.' " Id. at 1032 n. 5 (quoting Kaya v. Partington, 681 A.2d 256, 261 (R.I.1996)); see also LaPlante v. Honda North America, Inc., 697 A.2d 625, 628 (R.I.1997) ("[T]his Court will adopt a construction that avoids an absurd or unjust result.”); Berthiaume v. School Committee of Woonsocket, 121 R.I. 243, 247 , 397 A.2d 889, 892 (1979) ("[W]e adhere to the canon that s | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Santos
green
2 sentences2007Of course, when we apply the plain meaning rule, "we remain mindful of the corollary principle that we 'will not construe a statute to reach an absurd result.’ ” State v. Santos, 870 A.2d 1029 , 1032 n. 5 (R.I.2005) (quoting Kaya v. Partington, 681 A.2d 256, 261 (R.I.1996)). 7 . 2005As we stated very recently in the case of State v. Santos, 870 A.2d 1029 (R.I.2005): "[I]n abiding by the plain meaning rule, we remain mindful of the corollary principle that we 'will not construe a statute to reach an absurd result.' " Id. at 1032 n. 5 (quoting Kaya v. Partington, 681 A.2d 256, 261 (R.I.1996)); see also LaPlante v. Honda North America, Inc., 697 A.2d 625, 628 (R.I.1997) ("[T]his Court will adopt a construction that avoids an absurd or unjust result.”); Berthiaume v. School Committee of Woonsocket, 121 R.I. 243, 247 , 397 A.2d 889, 892 (1979) ("[W]e adhere to the canon that s | 2 | 2005–2007 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.