Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Others, most notably United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, have objected generally to the use of such evidence, rather than reliance on the literal language of the statute. They argue that such evidence of "legislative intent" is often created by proponents of a bill to persuade a court to interpret the statute in a way that they ...
In probate law, the rule is also favored because the testator is typically not around to indicate what interpretation of a will is appropriate. Therefore, it is argued, extrinsic evidence should not be allowed to vary the words used by the testator or their meaning. It can help to provide for consistency in interpretation.
Arkansas Supreme Court: "When reviewing issues of statutory interpretation, we keep in mind that the first rule in considering the meaning and effect of a statute is to construe it just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language. When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, there is ...
Thomas ripped into the majority opinion’s interpretation of case law and rattled through the evidence while casting doubt on whether the revelations about Sneed would have changed the trial outcome.
Determining whether to suppress evidence recovered and whether it was covered in the warrant. "This Court has interpreted the above constitutional and statutory provisions of this State to mean just what they clearly state, and by doing so has characterized its interpretation by calling it the "four corners" rule or doctrine of law." [7]
Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. 528 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court construed 18 U.S.C. § 1519, a provision added to the federal criminal code by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, to criminalize the destruction or concealment of "any record, document, or tangible object" to obstruct a federal investigation. [1]
The purposive approach (sometimes referred to as purposivism, [1] purposive construction, [2] purposive interpretation, [3] or the modern principle in construction) [4] is an approach to statutory and constitutional interpretation under which common law courts interpret an enactment (a statute, part of a statute, or a clause of a constitution) within the context of the law's purpose.
Thonesavanh, The Minnesota Supreme Court expressly rejected the position that the rule "allows a defendant to prevail in every instance in which a criminal statute is ambiguous." [ 17 ] At issue was the question of whether the word "take," as used in the state's law against auto theft, [ 18 ] required the accused to actually move the vehicle ...