Eagen v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 42 A.3d 478 (2012)

Citation: Eagen v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 42 A.3d 478 (2012)
Parent Document: Eagen v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 42 A.3d 478 (2012)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2012-05-22
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2297138/eagen-v-commission-on-human-rig... ↗

Full Text

1,161 chars

including the question of whether the language actually does apply. . . . General Statutes § l-2z requires this court first to consider the text of the statute and its relationship to other statutes to determine its meaning. If, after such consideration, the meaning of the statutory text is plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or unworkable results, we cannot consider extratextual evidence of the meaning of the statute. . . . Only if we determine that the text of the statute is not plain and unambiguous may we look to extratextual evidence of its meaning, such as the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment . . . the legislative policy it was designed to implement, and ... its relationship to existing legislation and common law principles governing the same general subject matter .... The proper test to determine whether the meaning of the text of a statute is ambiguous is whether the statute, when read in context, is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Potvin v. Lincoln Service & Equipment Co., 298 Conn. 620, 631-32, 6 A.3d 60 (2010).

Other Sections in This Document (112)

Full Text