Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Gardiner

Utah Supreme Court

Decided June 18, 1991No. 890231Published

1Dissent

BENCH, Court of Appeals Judge

(dissenting).

When all is said and done, the majority recognizes that this is a case of statutory construction. I dissent because I disagree with the majority’s construction of the statutes Gardiner was accused of violating.

In construing a statute, the primary focus should be on the statutory text, the words employed by the Legislature to express its intent, because “the best indication of legislative intent is the statute’s plain language.” Berube v. Fashion Centr, Ltd., 771 P.2d 1033, 1038 (Utah 1989). Thus, “[wjhere statutory language is plain and unambiguous,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Weeks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  2. Berube v. Fashion Centre, Ltd.Utah Supreme Court · 1989
  3. United States v. Piero Heliczer, Jack William Martin, Iii, and Jack v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1967
  4. Bonham v. MorganUtah Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Brinkerhoff v. ForsythUtah Supreme Court · 1989

5 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