Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)

Citation
Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
Parent Document
Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77 (2007)
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date
2007-05-17

Full Text

746 chars
We look first to the language of the statute itself. “Courts must ascertain the intent of a statute from all its parts and from the subject matter to which it relates, and must interpret the statute so as to render the legislation effective, consonant with sound reason and common sense.” Harvard Crimson, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 445 Mass. 745, 749 (2006). See Adamowicz v. Ipswich, 395 Mass. 757, 760 (1985) (courts will not interpret a statute so as to render any portion of it meaningless; a construction that would defeat the legislative purpose will not be adopted “if the statutory language is fairly susceptible to a construction that would lead to a logical and sensible result” [quotations and citation omitted]).