discussed Cited "see" State v. Victor L. Pixley See State v. Stell , 2007 VT 106 , ¶ 12, 182 Vt. 368 , 937 A.2d 649 (explaining that this Court assumes "the Legislature intended the plain and ordinary meaning of the language it used" and will depart from ordinary and usual meaning only when purpose of legislation would be defeated). ¶ 15.

discussed Cited "see" State v. Michael Rondeau (2×) See State v. Stell, 2007 VT 106, ¶ 10 , 182 Vt. 368 , 937 A.2d 649 .

cited Cited "see" State v. Timothy Cousino See State v. Stell, 2007 VT 106, ¶ 12 , 182 Vt. 368 (“Our goal is to implement the Legislature’s intent and the definitive source of legislative intent is the statutory language . . . .

cited Cited "see" Paynter 2-Lot Subdivision See State v. Stell, 2007 VT 106, ¶ 12 , 182 Vt. 368 (explaining that in interpreting statutes, courts look first to the plain language); e.g.

cited Cited "see" State v. Beaudoin See State v. Stell, 2007 VT 106, ¶ 10 , 182 Vt. 368 , 937 A.2d 649 .