Estill v. Alabama State Tenure Com'n

1 Citing case

  1. Fidelity Dep. Co., v. Dept. of Admin. Serv

    830 A.2d 1224 (Del. Ch. 2003)   Cited 6 times
    Refusing to “impos[e] an additional term upon the statute that was not put in place by the legislature” because “[t]he legislature was clearly capable of articulating exacting requirements” if it wanted to do so

    This "implication" argument, however, does not persuade the court in this context. See id., at 10 (citing Hershey v. State of Illinois, 43 Ill.Ct.Cl. 108 (Ill.Ct.Cl. 1990); Estill v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 650 So.2d 890 (Ala.Civ.App. 1994); and Pfeifle v. Tanabe, 620 N.W.2d 167 (N.D. 2000)). F D's reliance on Weymouth in this context is misplaced.