Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
However, use of the literal rule may defeat the intention of Parliament. For instance, in the case of Whiteley v. Chappel, [10] the court came to the reluctant conclusion that Whiteley could not be convicted of impersonating "any person entitled to vote" at an election, because the person he impersonated was dead. Using a literal construction ...
A strict application of the plain meaning rule can sometimes result in "absurd" outcomes. Examples of the plain meaning rule producing absurd outcomes can be seen in the following cases: In Whitely v Chappel (1868), a statute made it an offence "to impersonate any person entitled to vote". The defendant used the vote of a dead man.
In England and Wales, the Poor Law Amendment Act 1851, section 3, made it an offence to impersonate a "person entitled to vote" at an election.In the case of Whiteley v Chappell (1868), the literal rule of statutory interpretation was employed to find that a dead person was not a "person entitled to vote" and consequently a person accused of this offence was acquitted.
In re Wragg Ltd [1897] 1 Ch 796, company law case, where Court of Appeal refused to impeach a share sale transaction alleged to have been at an undervalue; Batsakis v. Demotsis, 226 S.W.2d 673 (1949), an American case in which the court held that a few drachma was good consideration
R v Whiteley (1991) 93 Cr App R 25 was an important case in the criminal law of England & Wales in relation to criminal damage.It established that for the purposes of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, [1] the property in question must be tangible but the damage done may be intangible. [2]
Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, 601 U.S. ___ (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, assuming the discovery rule applies to copyright infringement, the three-year statute of limitations for an infringement suit does not prevent recovery. [1] [2]
Stephanie Isenberg, another buyer who has been pushing the city to take responsibility, says the response from the mayor’s office has been: file a lawsuit against the developer.
Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning whether the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment was offended by a school district that refused to allow a church access to school premises to show films dealing with family and child-rearing issues faced by parents.