stating that “reenactment of a statute without change, after construction * * ⅜. by the court, presumptively constitutes an adoption of such construction”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “reenactment of a statute without change, after construction * * ⅜. by the court, presumptively constitutes an adoption of such construction”
- stating that the “judicial construction of a statute, so long as it is unreversed, is as much a part thereof as if it had been written into it originally”
- standing for the principle that the “judicial construction of a statute, so long as it is unreversed, is as much a part thereof as if it had been written into it originally” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)
- stating “reenactment of a statute without change, after construction of the statute by [the supreme court], presumptively constitutes an adoption of such construction”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Magnet, Justice
(concurring).
I still adhere to the view expressed in the dissenting opinion in The Pullman Co. v. Commr. of Taxation, 223 Minn. 96 , 25 N. W. (2d) 838 . However, for reasons set out in the last paragraph of the above opinion, I reluctantly concur.