Ott v. Johnson

1 Citing case

  1. In re Whyte

    164 B.R. 976 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1993)   Cited 2 times

             Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the Court may not substitute language which it feels that the legislative body may have intended. Ott v. Johnson, 262 Ind. 548, 319 N.E.2d 622, 624 (1974). It is not within the province of the court to expand or contract the meaning of a statute by reading into it language which arguably will correct any supposed omissions or defects.