Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. Some amount of interpretation is often necessary when a case involves a statute . Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and a straightforward meaning.
Using a literal construction of the relevant statutory provision, the deceased was not "a person entitled to vote". This, surely, cannot have been the intention of Parliament. However, the literal rule does not take into account the consequences of a literal interpretation, only whether words have a clear meaning that makes sense within that ...
Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts is a 2012 book by United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and lexicographer Bryan A. Garner.Following a foreword written by Frank Easterbrook, then Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Scalia and Garner present textualist principles and canons applicable to the analysis of all legal texts, following by ...
The major questions doctrine is a principle of statutory interpretation applied in United States administrative law cases which states that courts will presume that Congress does not delegate to executive agencies issues of major political or economic significance.
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.
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.
“The opinion below applied long-established principles of statutory interpretation to arrive at its holding, and review is neither necessary nor urgent,” prosecutors wrote in court filings.
Courts in the United States and elsewhere have developed a number of principles for handling such evidence of legislative intent. For example, many courts have suggested that the comments of those opposing a bill under consideration should be treated with skepticism on the principle that opponents of a bill may often exaggerate its practical consequences.