Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The plain meaning rule, also known as the literal rule, is one of three rules of statutory construction traditionally applied by English courts. [1] The other two are the "mischief rule" and the "golden rule". The plain meaning rule dictates that statutes are to be interpreted using the ordinary meaning of the language of the statute.
The second law is offered as a simple observation in the same essay but its status as Clarke's second law was conferred by others. It was initially a derivative of the first law and formally became Clarke's second law where the author proposed the third law in the 1973 revision of Profiles of the Future, which included an acknowledgement. [4]
Document review (also known as doc review), in the context of legal proceedings, is the process whereby each party to a case sorts through and analyzes the documents and data they possess (and later the documents and data supplied by their opponents through discovery) to determine which are sensitive or otherwise relevant to the case. [1]
The mischief rule [1] is one of three rules of statutory interpretation traditionally applied by English courts, [2] the other two being the "plain meaning rule" (also known as the "literal rule") and the "golden rule". It is used to determine the exact scope of the "mischief" that the statute in question has set out to remedy, and to guide the ...
This means that the plain meaning rule (and statutory interpretation as a whole) should only be applied when there is an ambiguity. Because the meaning of words can change over time, scholars and judges typically will recommend using a dictionary to define a term that was published or written around the time the statute was enacted. Technical ...
Property Rules, Liability Rules and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral is an article in the scholarly legal literature (Harvard Law Review, Vol.85, p. 1089, April 1972), authored by Judge Guido Calabresi (of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) and A. Douglas Melamed, currently a professor at Stanford Law School.
A different law is given this name in Niven's essay "The Theory and Practice of Time Travel": [1] If the universe of discourse permits the possibility of time travel and of changing the past, then no time machine will be invented in that universe. Hans Moravec glosses this version of Niven's Law as follows: [2]
Pseudolaw advocates claim that it is possible, through the use of certain "redemption" procedures and documents, to separate oneself from the "strawman", therefore becoming free of the rule of law. [2] [3] Hence, the main use of strawman theory is in escaping and denying liabilities and legal responsibility. Tax protesters, "commercial ...