Campaign for Accountability v. Consumer Credit Research Found.

2 Citing cases

  1. Kinslow v. State

    311 Ga. 768 (Ga. 2021)   Cited 13 times
    Explaining that when construing statutes, we normally avoid interpretations that render some statutory language "mere surplusage" (citation and punctuation omitted)

    And, relatedly, "courts should avoid a statutory construction that will render some of the statutory language mere surplusage." Thornton v. State , 310 Ga. 460, 469 (3), 851 S.E.2d 564 (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted); see also Campaign for Accountability v. Consumer Credit Research Found. , 303 Ga. 828, 832 (2), 815 S.E.2d 841 (2018). If OCGA § 16-9-93 (b) (2) is as broad as the State suggests, "obstructing" and "interrupting" become entirely surplusage and redundant; in such an event, the relevant text would need to list only "interfering."

  2. Khalia, Inc. v. Rosebud

    353 Ga. App. 350 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 7 times
    Affirming award of $140,951.17 where contingency fee agreement would have generated a fee of $442,855.13 and hourly billing would have resulted in fees of $50,000, emphasizing that the trial court reduced the award from the amount sought by the plaintiff because it found that some of the fees evidenced by the plaintiff’s attorneys were not reasonable

    The surplusage canon has been adopted in Georgia. See Campaign for Accountability v. Consumer Credit Research Found. , 303 Ga. 828, 834, 815 S.E.2d 841, 846 (2018). "In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning."