Bagley v. Bagley
| Docket Number | 20150182 |
| Decision Date | 26 October 2016 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
58 cases
-
State v. Sosa-Hurtado
...is a question of statutory interpretation. The point of statutory interpretation is to understand what the Legislature intended. Bagley v. Bagley , 2016 UT 48, ¶ 10, 387 P.3d 1000. Because "[t]he best evidence of the legislature's intent is the plain language of the statute itself, we look ......
-
Bylsma v. Willey
...violates well-recognized canons of statutory interpretation: "[w]e presume that the legislature used each word advisedly," Bagley v. Bagley , 2016 UT 48, ¶ 10, 387 P.3d 1000 (alteration in original) (citation omitted), and that a difference in word choice is to be assigned a difference in m......
-
True v. Utah Dep't of Transp.
...appellate briefs to contain "citation to the record showing that the issue was preserved for review" (emphasis added) ); see also Bagley v. Bagley , 2016 UT 48, ¶ 26, 387 P.3d 1000 (stating that parties are allowed to "offer[ ] a[ ] [new] argument in support of a particular issue already pr......
-
Rutherford v. Talisker Canyons Fin., Co.
...absurd, or ridiculous consequences should be avoided." (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Bagley v. Bagley , 2016 UT 48, ¶ 27, 387 P.3d 1000 ("[T]he absurd consequences canon ... merely resolve[s] an ambiguity by choosing the reading that avoids absurd results.......
Request a trial to view additional results