Court Opinion

ID: 9603224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:04:19.571483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:09.685178
License: Public Domain

*572MR. JUSTICE ROVIRA
specially concurring:
When statutory language is unequivocal, as in this instance, common sense dictates that it not be read into, but out from. The philosphy expressed by the dissent is an argument better made to the legislature.
Professor McCormick, as quoted in the dissent, has recognized that it is the statute-makers who must initiate any change in survivors’ evidence acts and has suggested alternative solutions which could be utilized by the legislature.
In view of the clarity of the statutory language, and with any fair reading of it, reversal is required. Respect for the English language demands it. A due regard for separation of powers warrants it.