pe2 housing v baker, No. 25-cv-5036 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024)

Citation: pe2 housing v baker, No. 25-cv-5036 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024)
Parent Document: pe2 housing v baker, No. 25-cv-5036 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2024-11-01
Original Source: https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/20324 ↗

Full Text

682 chars

Jud. Watch, Inc. v. State, 2005 VT 108, ¶ 16. The Court has cautioned that “a statute is
not absurd simply because it causes an outcome that a litigant believes to be anomalous
or perhaps unwise.” Billewicz v. Town of Fair Haven, 2021 VT 20, ¶ 28 (cleaned up). A
construction is absurd if “it is quite impossible that [the Legislature] could have
intended the result and where the alleged absurdity is so clear as to be obvious to most
anyone,” Gibbons v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 919 F.3d 699, 706 (2d Cir. 2019), or
where it “defies rationality or renders the statute nonsensical and superfluous.”
Encompass Ins. Co. v. Stone Mansion Rest. Inc., 902 F.3d 147, 152 (3d Cir. 2018).

Other Sections in This Document (102)

Full Text