Court Opinion

ID: 9696990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:03:03.867535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:28.415474
License: Public Domain

WATHEN, Justice,
with whom NICHOLS, Justice, joins dissenting
I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the Court. I am unable to find a principled basis for ignoring the plain meaning of the language set forth in section 1121(1)(C). Although the Court attempts to justify undertaking its statutory exegesis, in the final analysis the effort is unpersuasive. Nothing is gained by characterizing plaintiffs argument as urging a “mechanical” application of the literal terms of the statute. Plaintiff correctly asserts that in the absence of ambiguity there is no reason to engage in any further construction of the language. I would apply the statute as written and affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.