BRANDA PEEBLES & Another v. JRK PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., & others. (2025)

Citation: BRANDA PEEBLES & Another v. JRK PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., & others. (2025)
Parent Document: BRANDA PEEBLES & Another v. JRK PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., & others. (2025)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2025-08-01
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10646213/branda-peebles-another-v-jrk-p... ↗

Full Text

1,111 chars

Discussion.  The certified questions call for us to interpret G. L. c. 186, § 15B (4).  "[W]e apply the 'general and familiar rule . . . that a statute must be interpreted according to the intent of the Legislature ascertained from all its words construed by the ordinary and approved usage of the language, considered in connection with the cause of its enactment, the mischief or imperfection to be remedied and the main object to be accomplished."  Meikle v. Nurse, 474 Mass. 207, 209-210 (2016), quoting Lowery v. Klemm, 446 Mass. 572, 576-577 (2006).  "[W]e look to the language of the entire statute, not just a single sentence, and attempt to interpret all of its terms 'harmoniously to effectuate the intent of the Legislature.'"  Phillips v. Equity Residential Mgt., L.L.C., 478 Mass. 251, 257 (2017), quoting Commonwealth v. Hanson H., 464 Mass. 807, 810 (2013).  "Ordinarily, where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, it is conclusive as to legislative intent."  Ryan v. Mary Ann Morse Healthcare Corp., 483 Mass. 612, 620 (2019), quoting Ciani v. MacGrath, 481 Mass. 174, 178 (2019).

Other Sections in This Document (49)

Full Text