Insurance Co. of State of Pa. v. Johnson
Supreme Court of Vermont
1Dissent
Skoglund, J.,
¶25. dissenting. While I agree that the language of 23 V.S.A. § 941(a) is susceptible to the majority’s interpretation, because all other indications compel a contrary construction, I respectfully dissent.
¶ 26. As the majority recites, our “paramount goal” when construing a statute is to implement the will of the Legislature. Colwell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2003 VT 5, ¶ 7, 175 Vt. 61, 819 A.2d 727. “When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, we presume that the Legislature intended the meaning expressed by that language.” Id. Indeed, in such situations, we view it as…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Tarrant v. Department of TaxesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1999
- Colwell v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 2003
- Mass v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- In re Estate of CoteSupreme Court of Vermont · 2004
- Fireman's Fund Insurance v. CNA InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 2004
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.