Cited by

Of course, if the legislature disagrees with our construction, it is free to amend the statute as it sees fit.

Zorn v. Demetri, 158 N.H. 437, 440 (2009) (observing that RSA chapter 540-A “evinces an intent to govern the rental of only residential premises”).

We first look to the language of the statute itself, and, if possible, construe that language according to its plain and ordinary meaning.

We do not consider words and phrases in isolation, but rather within the context of the statute as a whole.

“Of course, if the legislature disagrees with our construction, it is free to amend the statute as it sees fit.” Zorn v. Demetri, 158 N.H. 437, 441 (2009).

The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo.

This enables us to better discern the legislature’s intent and to interpret statutory language in light of the policy or purpose sought to be advanced by the statutory scheme.

“In matters of statutory interpretation, we are the final arbiters of the legislature’s intent as expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole.” Zorn v. Demetri, 158 N.H. 437, 438 (2009).

Accordingly, we hold that, in order to secure a criminal conviction under RSA 358-A:6, I, the State must prove that a defendant acted with the mental state of “purposely.” “Of course, if the legislature disagrees with our construction, it is free to amend the statute as it sees fit.” Zorn v. Demetri, 158 N.H. 437, 441 (2009).

The interpretation of a statute is a matter of law, which we review de novo.

The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo.

Answering these questions requires us to interpret the statutory requirements for securing a mechanic’s hen, see RSA 447:10 (2002), which presents a question of law that we review de novo.

In matters of statutory interpretation, we are the final arbiters of the legislature’s intent as expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole.

“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo.” Zorn v. Demetri, 158 N.H. 437, 438 (2009).

In matters of statutory interpretation, we are the final arbiters of the legislature’s intent as expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole.

The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo.

Of course, if the legislature disagrees with our construction, it is free to amend the statute as it sees fit.

Of course, should the legislature disagree with our interpretation of RSA *410 262:23,1, it is free to amend the statute as it sees fit.

Therefore, although a dictionary definition is not necessarily conclusive of statutory meaning, see Zorn v. Demetri, 158 N.H. 437, 440 (2009), we may rely upon the dictionary to provide insight into the legislature’s intended meaning of language.