Cited by

(foundational rule of statutory interpretation that courts should not “read into a statute something which is not within the manifest intention of the legislature as gathered from the statute itself” ()).

(“A fundamental rule of statutory construction is that courts will not read into a statute something which is not within the manifest intention of the [L]egislature as gathered from the statute itself.”).

(providing that “court will not inflate, expand, stretch or extend a statute to matters not falling within its expressed provisions” ()).

(“[C]ourts will not read into a statute something which is not within the manifest intention of the legislature as gathered from the statute itself.” (citation omitted)).

The statute does not say “future action” or “potential action.” (providing that “court will not inflate, expand, stretch or extend a statute to matters not falling within its expressed provisions” ()).

e, (courts will not read into statute something “not within the manifest intention of the legislature as gathered from the statute itself,” nor will we “inflate, expand, stretch or extend a 8 DOE v. WARR Opinion of the Court statute” ()).

v. FONTES Opinion of the Court “‘inflate, expand, stretch or extend a statute to matters not falling within its expressed provisions.’” ().

We will not “read into a statute something which is not within the manifest intention of the legislature as gathered from the statute itself,” nor will we “inflate, expand, stretch or extend a statute to matters not falling within its expressed provisions.” ().

(internal quotation mark omitted) ().

We will not “read into a statute something which is not within the manifest intention of the legislature as gathered from the statute itself,” nor will we “‘inflate, expand, stretch or extend a statute to matters not falling within its expressed provisions.’” ().

Mental Health No. MH 2006-000490, (“[W]e do not ‘inflate, expand, stretch or extend a statute to matters not falling within its expressed provisions.’” ()).

3) (Bolick, J., concurring); (“‘[C]ourts will not read into a statute something which is not within the manifest intention of the legislature as gathered from the statute itself,’ and similarly the ‘court will not inflate, expand, stretch or extend a statute to matters not falling within its expressed provisions.’” ()).

decision); ¶ 16 (App. 2007); (stating we will not expand a statute beyond its express language).

We “will not inflate, expand, stretch or extend a statute to matters not falling within its expressed provisions.” ¶ 20 (2022) ().

¶ 20 (2022) (“court will not inflate, expand, stretch or extend a statute to matters not falling within its expressed provisions” ()).

(providing that “court will not inflate, expand, stretch or extend a statute to matters not falling within its expressed provisions” ()); see also Philips v. O’Neil, (“We interpret court rules according to the principles of statutory construction.”).

¶ 20 (2022) () (stating “courts will not read into a statute something which is not within the manifest intention of the legislature as gathered from the statute itself” (emphasis added)); ¶ 15 (2022) (“Legislative history is not a substitute for clear legislative language .

(we will not “inflate, expand, stretch, or extend statute to matters not within expressed provisions”).

Comm’n, (“[A] court will not inflate, expand, stretch or extend a statute to matters not falling within its expressed provisions.”).

See id.; (court will not read into statute something not within manifest intent of legislature as indicated by statute itself); (court will not “inflate, expand, stretch or extend” statute to matters not within expressed provisions).

(“court will not inflate, expand, stretch or extend a statute to matters not falling within its expressed provisions” ()).

See, ¶ 20 (2022) (holding that “courts will not read into a statute something which is not within the manifest intention of the legislature as gathered from the statute itself,” and “will not inflate, expand, stretch or extend a statute to matters not falling within its expressed provisions” ()).

(courts will not “read into a statute something which is not within the manifest intention of the legislature as gathered from the statute itself” or “inflate, expand, stretch or extend a statute to matters not falling within its expressed provisions” ()); (applying principles of statutory construction when interpreting rules of procedure, looking to plain language of rule as best and most reliable index of its meaning).