stating the "statutory use of the word 'may' is generally construed to make the provision * * * optional, permissive, or discretionary," while use of the word " 'shall' is usually interpreted to make the provision in which it is contained mandatory"
How later courts described this case
- stating the "statutory use of the word 'may' is generally construed to make the provision * * * optional, permissive, or discretionary," while use of the word " 'shall' is usually interpreted to make the provision in which it is contained mandatory"
- holding that “statutory use of the word ‘may’ is generally construed to make the provision in which it is contained optional, permissive, or discretionary.”
- holding that the word “ ‘ “may” denotes the granting of discretion’ ”
- indicating that “[t]he word ‘shall’ is usually interpreted to make the provision in which it is contained mandatory * * *.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Schneider, J.,
dissenting. As I see it, the word “may” in the statutes refers to an option as to the manner of payment. I can see no discretion as to whether or not the debt incurred shall be paid.
CoRbigan, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.