Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Citation
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Parent Document
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Jurisdiction
- Rhode Island (state)
- Effective Date
- 2002-02-14
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5138732/tambor-v-miller/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (18)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Tambor v. Miller, 792 A.2d 744 (2002)
- Section 34-18-11
- Section 34-18-11
- Section 34-18-11
- Section 34-18-11
- Section 34-18-11
Full Text
583 chars“ Tt is well settled that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, this Court must interpret the statute literally and must give the words of the statute their plain and ordinary meanings’.” Solas v. Emergency Hiring Council of the State, 774 A.2d 820, 824 (R.I.2001) (quoting Accent Store Design, Inc. v. Marathon House, Inc., 674 A.2d 1223, 1226 (R.I.1996)). “ ‘Moreover, when we examine an unambiguous statute, “there is no room for statutory construction and we must apply the statute as written.” ’ ” Id. (quoting State v. DiCicco, 707 A.2d 251, 253 (R.I.1998)).