Legal Opinion · Dissent

Koppin v. Strode

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided January 15, 2002No. 49A02-0103-CV-148Published

1DissentBrook, Chief Judge

One of the canons of statutory interpretation is that "it is just as important to recognize what a statute does not say as it is to recognize what it does say." Rush v. Elkhart County Plan Comm'n, 698 N.E.2d 1211, 1215 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied. Indiana Code Section 10-2-4-8 does not say that a state or local governmental entity may adopt its own interpretation of the word "day," and I agree with the majority on this point. I also agree with the majority that the legislature intended to treat all public employees equally with regard to military service. I must respectfully dissent,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Rush v. Elkhart County Plan CommissionIndiana Court of Appeals · 1998
  2. Airdo v. Village of Westchester Ex Rel. ClarkAppellate Court of Illinois · 1981
  3. Howe v. City of St. CloudCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
  4. Donaldson v. TaylorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1997
  5. Kalb v. Village of Oak LawnAppellate Court of Illinois · 1984

2 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