Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Thus shall is used with the meaning of obligation, and will with the meaning of desire or intention. An illustration of the supposed contrast between shall and will (when the prescriptive rule is adhered to) appeared in the 19th century, [11] and has been repeated in the 20th century [12] and in the 21st: [13] I shall drown; no one will save me!
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.
In law, a question of law, also known as a point of law, is a question that must be answered by applying relevant legal principles to the interpretation of the law. [1] Such a question is distinct from a question of fact , which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence as well as inferences arising from those facts.
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 ...
Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution states: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to ...
Questions of constitutionality are considered a type of question of law, and thus appellate courts always review lower court decisions that address constitutional issues de novo. However, the term "standard of review" has an additional meaning in the context of reviewing a law for its constitutionality, which concerns how much deference the ...
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.
Lord Dyson emphasized that "the scope of judicial review should be no more (as well as no less) than is proportionate and necessary for the maintaining of the rule of law". [20] On the facts of the case, he found it was neither proportionate nor necessary for the maintenance of the rule of law to require unrestricted judicial review.