Petitioner has yet to offer any explanation for the purpose
served by amendment.
the new definition of The interpretation
The Courts are
given statute employs useless So. 2d 409, 411 (Fla. 1986).
not to presume that a Johnson v . Feder, 485 interpretations which
render statutory provisions
superfluous are disfavored.
llsupport for the purposes of the URESA cannot be interpreted to provide that the
T h e amendment law applies to
to the petition for this Court to ignore
alimony. prohibition amendment.
Both responses essentially ask