Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Judicial interpretation is the way in which the judiciary construes the law, particularly constitutional documents, legislation and frequently used vocabulary.This is an important issue in some common law jurisdictions such as the United States, Australia and Canada, because the supreme courts of those nations can overturn laws made by their legislatures via a process called judicial review.
Accordingly, a particular interpretation of a statute would also become binding, and it became necessary to introduce a consistent framework for statutory interpretation. In the construction (interpretation) of statutes, the principal aim of the court must be to carry out the "intention of Parliament", and the English courts developed three ...
The Supreme Court Building houses the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States.. The judiciary (also known as the judicial system, judicature, judicial branch, judiciative branch, and court or judiciary system) is the system of courts that adjudicates legal disputes/disagreements and interprets, defends, and applies the law in legal cases.
As there is always the danger that a particular interpretation may be the equivalent of making law, some judges prefer to adhere to the law's literal wording. Opponents of the plain meaning rule claim that the rule rests on the erroneous assumption that words have a fixed meaning.
For the purpose of resolving this issue, courts have developed canons of interpretation. The rule of lenity is one such canon. The rule of lenity is one such canon. Implicit in its provisions is the additional burden placed on the prosecution in a criminal case and the protection of individual rights against the powers of the state.
Original intent is a theory in law concerning constitutional and statutory interpretation. It is frequently used as a synonym for originalism; while original intent is one theory in the originalist family, it has some salient differences which has led originalists from more predominant schools of thought such as original meaning to distinguish original intent as much as legal realists do.
The Supreme Court of Canada first applied this rule of judicial interpretation to Acts of Parliament in 1935, in its ruling in the case of R. v. Dubois. [4] The rule was reaffirmed with respect to federal statutes as subsection 18(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , [ 5 ] when the constitution was patriated in 1982.
The golden rule in English law is one of the rules of statutory construction traditionally applied by the English courts. The rule can be used to avoid the consequences of a literal interpretation of the wording of a statute when such an interpretation would lead to a manifest absurdity or to a result that is contrary to principles of public policy.