Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Brooks v. A.S.

Utah Supreme Court

Decided February 6, 2015No. 20120683Published

1Concurrence

Associate Chief Justice NEHRING,

concurring in judgment:

22 I respectfully concur in the judgment only. I disagree with the majority's interpretation of Utah Code section 78B-6-111. I believe the statute is ambiguous and therefore I would use the doctrine of constitutional avoidance to hold that section 111 applies only to conduct committed in-state.

123 First, unlike the majority, I do not believe the statute is elucidated by recourse to the expressio unius est exclusio alterius canon.8 The majority's strained use of that canon makes it abundantly clear that though antiquated latin maxims are…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  3. Zadvydas v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  4. Santosky v. KramerSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  5. Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API