This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-11-24 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It is axiomatic that laws should be given a reasonable interpretation which does not defeat the very purpose for which they were passed.[17] Courts should not follow the letter of a statute when to do so would depart from the true intent of the legislature or would otherwise yield conclusions inconsistent with the purpose of the act.[18] This Court has, in many cases involving the construction of statutes, cautioned against narrowly interpreting a statute as to defeat the purpose of the legislator, and rejected the literal interpretation of statutes if to do so would lead to unjust or absurd results.[19] | |||||
|
2007-01-24 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| It is a cardinal rule that in interpreting a statute, the purpose of the Court is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent.[10] Differently stated, the true object of statutory construction is to ascertain the meaning and will of the lawmaking body to the end that it may be enforced.[11] | |||||