Commonwealth v. Taisacan

6 Citing cases

  1. Commonwealth v. Jackson

    2015 N. Mar. I. LEXIS 17 (N. Mar. I. 2015)

    "A statute is considered ambiguous when it is capable of more than one meaning." Commonwealth v. Taisacan, 1999 MP 8 P 6, 5 N. Mar. I. 236. Here, the language in § 1318 is clear and unambiguous.

  2. Commonwealth v. Sanchez

    2014 WL 1032191 (N. Mar. I. 2014)

    If a statute is "capable of more than one meaning," however, it is deemed ambiguous. Office of the Att'y Gen. v. Phillip, 2008 MP 1 ¶ 6 (quoting Commonwealth v. Taisacan, 1999 MP 8 ¶ 7, 5 N. Mar. I. 236). In reviewing an ambiguous statute, we examine the statute as a whole "to ascertain the legislature's intent," Aurelio, 2012 MP 21 ¶ 15 (citation omitted), and "avoid reading a statute in a way that defies common sense."

  3. In re Estate of Camacho

    2012 WL 2945467 (N. Mar. I. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    Whether the probate court correctly interpreted and applied a statute is a question of law reviewed de novo. See Commonwealth v. Taisacan, 1999 MP 8 ¶ 2, 5 N. Mar. I. 236 ("Whether the trial court correctly interpreted and applied a statute is a question of law reviewed de novo." (citing Commonwealth v. Kaipat, 2 NMI 322, 327-28 (1991), aff'd, 94 F.3d 574 (9th Cir. 1996))).

  4. Kabir v. CNMI Pub. Sch. Sys

    8 N. Mar. I. 319 (N. Mar. I. 2009)   Cited 4 times

    The above question is a matter of statutory interpretation, and like all matters of statutory interpretation, our analysis begins with the language of the statutory text. Commonwealth v. Taisacan, 1999 MP 8 P 6, 5 N. Mar. I. 236 ("A basic rule of statutory interpretation is that courts must first look at the language of the statute . . . .") Section 2210(a) of CELRTCA provides that in order to trigger employee immunity and government substitution, the CNMI Attorney General must certify that the defendant government employee "was acting within the scope of his/her office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose." 7 CMC § 2210(a) (emphasis added).

  5. N. Marianas College v. Civil Serv. Comm'n

    2006 N. Mar. I. LEXIS 3 (N. Mar. I. 2006)   Cited 2 times

    The issue before us is whether, and under what circumstances, an agency has standing to seek judicial review of an administrative proceeding. This matter being one of statutory interpretation, we review it de novo. Commonwealth v. Taisacan, 1999 MP 8 P18, 5 N. Mar. I. 236.IV.

  6. Commonwealth of the Northern Marianan Islands v. Suda

    6 N. Mar. I. 24 (N. Mar. I. 1999)   Cited 2 times
    Declining to review arguments raised for the first time on appeal

    Where a statute is capable of more than one meaning, it is considered ambiguous. Commonwealth v. Taisacan, 1999 N. Mar. I. LEXIS 6, *4-5, No. 98-006 (N.M.I. March 25, 1999) (slip op. at 3) (citation omitted). Defendant acknowledges that one interpretation is the one followed by the trial court.