and the most reliable indicator of intent is the language used, which must be given its plain and ordinary meaning. People v. Davison, 233 Ill. 2d 30, 40 (2009). In determining the plain meaning of a statute’s terms, we consider the statute in its entirety, keeping in mind the subject it addresses and the apparent intent of the legislature in enacting the statute. People v. Perry, 224 Ill. 2d 312, 323 (2007). When statutory terms are undefined, we presume that the legislature intended the terms to have their popularly understood meaning. People v. Maggette, 195 Ill. 2d 336, 349 (2001). Moreover, if a term has a settled legal meaning, the courts will normally infer that the legislature intended to incorporate the established meaning. People v. Bailey, 232 Ill. 2d 285, 290 (2009) (<HOLDING>). Statutes such as this, which are in
recognizing that plain meaning does not control where context shows that the parties have assigned an unusual meaning to a term holding that the court of criminal appeals has jurisdiction to review fines under the criminal sentencing reform act of 1982 because sentence is a broad term which encompasses a fine probation a term of imprisonment or any other form of punishment imposed by the court holding that the term search has a settled meaning in the realm of criminal procedure holding that when a term is not defined in a contract the presumption is that the term is to be given its ordinary meaning and significance holding that the meaning of a term in a claim must be consistent with its appearance in other claims in the same patent