Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Wiederien

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided February 3, 2006No. 04-0815Published

1DissentCady, J.

I respectfully dissent. The majority declares the existence of an ambiguity in the statute based upon two possible interpretations, and concludes we must adopt one interpretation over the other because the other interpretation would render the statute unconstitutional. First, this approach is based on the false premise that the interpretation according to the plain language of the statute would be unconstitutional. Second, as a method of statutory interpretation, it fails to consider other interpretive aids and fails to scrutinize the language of the statute to reveal the intent of our…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Winters v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  2. State v. MillsapSupreme Court of Iowa · 2005
  3. Callender v. SkilesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1999
  4. Miller v. Marshall CountySupreme Court of Iowa · 2002
  5. State Ex Rel. Turner v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1971

13 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