indicating that “words can have a variety of interpretations, depending on context, circumstance, history and juxtaposition to other words”
How later courts described this case
- indicating that “words can have a variety of interpretations, depending on context, circumstance, history and juxtaposition to other words”
- indicating *429 that “words can have a variety of interpretations, depending on context, circumstance, history and juxtaposition to other words”
- "It is conceded that words can have a variety of interpretations, depending on context, circumstance, history and juxtaposition to other words, but there are a few words which are immune to mutation, and retain, regardless of rhetorical climate, only one meaning. 'Hereafter' is such a polestar in the sea of language.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Jones:
I concur but specifically limit my reason to that portion of the majority opinion which construes the Act here involved to be prospective, that is, that its inhibitation was intended to apply only to employees of the county whose employment began subsequent to the passage of the Act.