Opinion ID: 2519689
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: applicability of lupa

Text: When statutory language is plain and unambiguous, the statute's meaning must be derived from the wording of the statute itself. [97] If the language of a statute is clear on its face, courts must give effect to its plain meaning and should assume the Legislature means exactly what it says. [98] In ascertaining the legislative intent in the enactment of a statute, the state of the law prior to its adoption must be given consideration. But where ... a statute is plain and unambiguous, it must be construed in conformity to its obvious meaning without regard to the previous state of the common law. [99] This court is obliged to give the plain language of a statute its full effect, even when its results may seem unduly harsh. [100] The Court of Appeals agrees that a BLA modifies real property within the definition of a land use decision, but it relies on the ministerial/quasi-judicial distinction to negate application of LUPA. [101] This distinction is not consistent with the intent and express language of LUPA.