X hits on this document

36 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

14 / 16

Petitioner has yet to offer any explanation for the purpose

served by amendment.

the new definition of The interpretation

the she

term offers

in

the

1992

renders

the

amendment meaningless.

The Courts are

given statute employs useless So. 2d 409, 411 (Fla. 1986).

language. Statutory

not to presume that a Johnson v . Feder, 485 interpretations which

render statutory provisions

The

1992

amendment

very

superfluous are disfavored.

specifically

defined

the

Id. term

llsupport for the purposes of the URESA cannot be interpreted to provide that the

law. URESA

T h e amendment law applies to

writ

of

the

1992

to the petition for this Court to ignore

alimony. prohibition amendment.

Both responses essentially ask

11

Document info
Document views36
Page views36
Page last viewedTue Dec 06 16:14:52 UTC 2016
Pages16
Paragraphs691
Words2885

Comments