895:: "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 no need to resort to rules of statutory construction. A statute is ambiguous only where it is open to two or more constructions, or where it is of such obscure or doubtful meaning that reasonable minds might disagree or be uncertain as to its meaning. When a statute is clear, however, it is given its plain meaning, and this court will not search for legislative intent; rather, that intent must be gathered from the plain meaning of the language used. This court is very hesitant to interpret a legislative act in a manner contrary to its express language, unless it is clear that a drafting error or omission has circumvented legislative intent."
1138:, reasoning "t is elementary that the meaning of a statute must, in the first instance, be sought in the language in which the act is framed, and if that is plain ... the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms." And if a statute's language is plain and clear, the Court further warned that "the duty of interpretation does not arise, and the rules which are to aid doubtful meanings need no discussion". 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.
674:, there are areas of law where provincial governments and the federal government have concurrent jurisdiction. In these cases the federal law is held to be paramount. However, in areas where the Canadian constitution is silent, the federal government does not necessarily have superior jurisdiction. Rather, an area of law that is not expressly mentioned in Canada's Constitution will have to be interpreted to fall under either the federal residual jurisdiction found in the preamble of s. 91—known as the Peace, Order and Good Government clause—or the provinces residual jurisdiction of "Property and Civil Rights" under s. 92(13A) of the 1867 Constitution Act. This contrasts with other federal jurisdictions, notably the
1682:"Purposivists often focus on the legislative process, taking into account the problem that Congress was trying to solve by enacting the disputed law and asking how the statute accomplished that goal." Purposivists believe in reviewing the processes surrounding the power of the legislative body as stated in the constitution as well as the rationale that a "reasonable person conversant with the circumstances underlying enactment would suppress the mischief and advance the remedy" Purposivists would understand statutes by examining "how Congress makes its purposes known, through text and reliable accompanying materials constituting legislative history."
584:
while
Salmond calls it "the process by which the courts seek to ascertain the meaning of the legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is expressed". Interpretation of a particular statute depends upon the degree of creativity applied by the judges or the court in the reading of it, employed to achieve some stated end. It is often mentioned that common law statutes can be interpreted by using the Golden Rule, the Mischief Rule or the Literal Rule. However, according to
1428:". Moreover, the avoidance applies only when "it is quite impossible that Congress could have intended the result ... and where the alleged absurdity is so clear as to be obvious to most anyone". "To justify a departure from the letter of the law upon that ground, the absurdity must be so gross as to shock the general moral or common sense", with an outcome "so contrary to perceived social values that Congress could not have 'intended' it".
1387:. On June 28, 2024, in the landmark case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the United States Supreme Court explicitly overturned the doctrine of Chevron deference. The case was cited as precedent in a federal case (Tennessee v. Becerra) the very next week. Loper says, in part, "Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA requires."
179:
808:
law. A person driving a motorcycle might be pulled over and the police may try to fine him if his motorcycle is not registered with the DMV. If that individual argued to the court that a motorcycle is not a "motor vehicle", then the court would have to interpret the statute to determine what the legislature meant by "motor vehicle" and whether or not the motorcycle fell within that definition and was covered by the statute.
4616:
4630:
1584:
about the meaning of an enacted statute. It may also be considered unfair to depart from the literal text because a citizen reading the literal text may not have fair notice that a court would depart from its literal meaning, nor fair notice as to what meaning the court would adopt. It may also be unwise to depart from the literal text if judges are generally less likely than legislatures to enact wise policies.
998:, Latin for "of the same kind") rule applies to resolve the problem of giving meaning to groups of words where one of the words is ambiguous or inherently unclear. The rule states that where "general words follow enumerations of particular classes or persons or things, the general words shall be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or kind as those enumerated".
705:
615:
77:
1236:
derogated from merely by force of such general words, without any evidence of a particular intention to do so." This means that if a later law and an earlier law are potentially—but not necessarily—in conflict, courts will adopt the reading that does not result in an implied repeal of the earlier statute. Lawmaking bodies usually need to be explicit if they intend to repeal an earlier law.
1084:
36:
1421:, Lord Denning of the Court of Appeals attacked "those who adopt the strict literal and grammatical construction of the words" and saying that the "he literal method is now completely out-of-date replaced by the ... 'purposive' approach". On appeal, however, against Denning's decision, Lord Russell in the House of Lords "disclaim the sweeping comments of Lord Denning".
965:: "e begin our analysis by reviewing the pertinent rules of . Of course, the cardinal rule is to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent. To this end, we begin our inquiry with the words of the statute and, ordinarily, when the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous, according to their commonly understood meaning, we end our inquiry there also."
1216:"When a will says "I devise and bequeath all my real and personal property to A", the principle of reddendo singula singulis would apply as if it read "I devise all my real property, and bequeath all my personal property, to A", since the word devise is appropriate only to real property and the term bequeath is appropriate only to personal property."
1052:
with Klimas, Tadas and
Vaiciukaite explaining "recitals in EC law are not considered to have independent legal value, but they can expand an ambiguous provision's scope. They cannot, however, restrict an unambiguous provision's scope, but they can be used to determine the nature of a provision, and this can have a restrictive effect."
1697:
types of sources that will be considered. Intentional theory seeks to refer to as many different sources as possible to consider the meaning or interpretation of a given statute. This theory is adjacent to a contextualist theory, which prioritizes the use of context to determine why a legislature enacted any given statute.
1174:
mentioned, the word "vehicles" would be interpreted in a limited sense (therefore vehicles cannot be interpreted as including airplanes). The rule can also be applied when the general words precede the more specific ones, with the general term limited to things similar to those specifically listed. While some scholars see
800:. While cases occasionally focus on a few key words or phrases, judges may occasionally turn to viewing a case in its whole in order to gain deeper understanding. The totality of the language of a particular case allows the Justices presiding to better consider their rulings when it comes to these key words and phrases.
1613:
The rule set out in the
Convention is essentially that the text of a treaty is decisive unless it either leaves the meaning ambiguous, or obscure, or leads to a result that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable. Recourse to "supplementary means of interpretation" is allowed only in that case, like the
1466:
Critics of the use of canons argue that canons impute some sort of "omniscience" to the legislature, suggesting that it is aware of the canons when constructing the laws. In addition, it is argued that the canons give a credence to judges who want to construct the law a certain way, imparting a false
1404:
when the defendant placed toxic chemicals on frequently touched surfaces of a friend. The statute in question made using a chemical weapon a crime; however, the separation of power between states and the federal government would be infringed upon if the
Supreme Court interpreted the statute to extend
1395:
If a statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable construction, courts should choose an interpretation that avoids raising constitutional problems. In the US, this canon has grown stronger in recent history. The traditional avoidance canon required the court to choose a different interpretation
1416:
The application of this rule in the United
Kingdom is not entirely clear. The literal meaning rule – that if "Parliament's meaning is clear, that meaning is binding no matter how absurd the result may seem" – has a tension with the "golden rule", permitting courts to avoid absurd results in cases of
475:
is the exemplar. In Roman and civil law, a statute (or code) guides the magistrate, but there is no judicial precedent. In
England, Parliament historically failed to enact a comprehensive code of legislation, which is why it was left to the courts to develop the common law; and having decided a case
1688:
Textualists believe that everything which the courts need in deciding on cases are enumerated in the text of legislative statutes. In other words, if any other purpose was intended by the legislature then it would have been written within the statutes and since it is not written, it implies that no
1474:
Some scholars argue that interpretive canons should be understood as an open set, despite conventional assumptions that traditional canons capture all relevant language generalizations. Empirical evidence, for example, suggests that ordinary people readily incorporate a "nonbinary gender canon" and
793:. It is a tenet of statutory construction that the legislature is supreme (assuming constitutionality) when creating law and that the court is merely an interpreter of the law. Nevertheless, in practice, by performing the construction the court can make sweeping changes in the operation of the law.
601:
interpretation with guidance furnished by the accepted principles. If a statutory provision is open to more than one interpretation the court has to choose that interpretation which represents the true intention of the legislature. The function of the courts is only to expound and not to legislate.
1235:
as: "Now if anything be certain it is this, that where there are general words in a later Act capable of reasonable and sensible application without extending them to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, you are not to hold that earlier legislation indirectly repealed, altered, or
1144:
As opposed to the plain meaning rule, the technical meaning rule applies the specific context and rules of grammar that are applied if the term is well defined and understood in an industry setting. To determine if there is a technical meaning, judges will look at whether the surrounding words are
1696:
Intentionalists refer to the specific intent of the enacting legislature on a specific issue. Intentionalists can also focus on general intent. It is important to note that private motives do not eliminate the common goal that the legislature carries. This theory differs from others mainly on the
1583:
It may be considered undemocratic to ignore the literal text, because only that text was passed through democratic processes. Indeed, there may be no single legislative "intent" other than the literal text that was enacted by the legislature, because different legislators may have different views
1196:
for short, may exclude everything listed of the same type as the things listed, without excluding things of a different type. In order to properly execute this canon, you must find the normative baseline, and determine whether the gap runs through the normative basis, or falls outside of it. This
1051:
However in the case of the
European Union, a supranational body, the recitals in Union legislation must specify the reasons the operative provisions were adopted, and if they do not, the legislation is void. This has been interpreted by the courts as giving them a role in statutory interpretation
807:
Assume, for example, that a statute mandates that all motor vehicles travelling on a public roadway must be registered with the
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). If the statute does not define the term "motor vehicles", then that term will have to be interpreted if questions arise in a court of
1437:
When a statute may be interpreted to abridge long-held rights of individuals or states, or make a large policy change, courts will not interpret the statute to make the change unless the legislature clearly stated it. This rule is based on the assumption that the legislature would not make major
1173:
When a list of two or more specific descriptors is followed by more general descriptors, the otherwise wide meaning of the general descriptors must be restricted to the same class, if any, of the specific words that precede them. For example, where "cars, motor bikes, motor powered vehicles" are
583:
The age old process of application of the enacted law has led to the formulation of certain rules of interpretation. According to Cross, "Interpretation is the process by which the courts determine the meaning of a statutory provision for the purpose of applying it to the situation before them",
1561:
It is controversial whether there is a hierarchy between interpretation methods. Germans prefer a "grammatical" (literal) interpretation, because the statutory text has a democratic legitimation, and "sensible" interpretations are risky, in particular in view of German history. "Sensible" means
1206:
When a word is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined by reference to the rest of the statute. This canon is often used to narrow the interpretation of terms in a list. We understand words in an act, particularly listed in words, by considering the words surrounding them. If two or more words
909:, 118 N.M. 234, 242, 880 P.2d 845, 853 (1994) "The words of a statute ... should be given their ordinary meaning, absent clear and express legislative intention to the contrary", as long as the ordinary meaning does "not render the statute's application absurd, unreasonable, or unjust."
811:
There are numerous rules of statutory interpretation. The first and most important rule is the rule dealing with the statute's plain language. This rule essentially states that the statute means what it says. If, for example, the statute says "motor vehicles", then the court is most likely to
803:
Statutory interpretation is the process by which a court looks at a statute and determines what it means. A statute, which is a bill or law passed by the legislature, imposes obligations and rules on the people. Although legislature makes the
Statute, it may be open to interpretation and have
1591:
The freedom of interpretation varies by area of law. Criminal law and tax law must be interpreted very strictly, and never to the disadvantage of citizens, but liability law requires more elaborate interpretation, because here (usually) both parties are citizens. Here the statute may even be
483:
Accordingly, a particular interpretation of a statute would also become binding, and it became necessary to introduce a consistent framework for statutory interpretation. In the construction (interpretation) of statutes, the principal aim of the court must be to carry out the "intention of
600:
A statute is an edict of a legislature, and the conventional way of interpreting a statute is to seek the "intention" of its maker. It is the judicature's duty to act upon the true intention of the legislature or the mens or sentential legis. The courts have to objectively determine the
1689:
other purpose or meaning was intended. By looking at the statutory structure and hearing the words as they would sound in the mind of a skilled, objectively reasonable user of words, textualists believe that they would respect the constitutional separation of power and best respect
935:(2000) 24 Cal.4th 219, 230 .) We do not, however, consider the statutory language in isolation, but rather examine the entire substance of the statute in order to determine the scope and purpose of the provision, construing its words in context and harmonizing its various parts. (
913:, 121 N.M. 111, 114, 908 P.2d 1379, 1382 (1995) When the meaning of a statute is unclear or ambiguous, we have recognized that it is "the high duty and responsibility of the judicial branch of government to facilitate and promote the legislature's accomplishment of its purpose."
1364:
Deference canons instruct the court to defer to the interpretation of another institution, such as an administrative agency or
Congress. These canons reflect an understanding that the judiciary is not the only branch of government entrusted with constitutional responsibility.
826:: "We begin with the familiar canon of statutory construction that the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself. Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive."
1145:
technical, and whether the act was directed to a technical audience. They can also look to the title, the purpose, or the legislative history to indicate whether there is technical meaning implied in the statute. This concept is most easily defined in the case
442:
in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge. To find the meanings of statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose. In
812:
construe that the legislation is referring to the broad range of motorised vehicles normally required to travel along roadways and not "aeroplanes" or "bicycles" even though aeroplanes are vehicles propelled by a motor and bicycles may be used on a roadway.
777:
Unforeseen situations are inevitable, and new technologies and cultures make application of existing laws difficult. (e.g. does the use of a new cloning technique create an embryo within the meaning of statute enacted when embryos could only be created by
1191:
Items not on the list are impliedly assumed not to be covered by the statute or a contract term. However, sometimes a list in a statute is illustrative, not exclusionary. This is usually indicated by a word such as "includes" or "such as". This canon,
539:
A statute is to be interpreted so as to uphold international treaties to which the UK is a party. In the case of EU law, any statutory provision which contravenes the principle embodied in the EU treaties that EU law is supreme is effectively void:
830:, 447 U.S. 102 (1980). "n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. ... ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there."
1068:. Proponents argue that a judge always has a choice between competing canons that lead to different results, so judicial discretion is only hidden through the use of canons, not reduced. These canons can be divided into two major groups:
1009:
Legislative bodies themselves may try to influence or assist the courts in interpreting their laws by placing into the legislation itself statements to that effect. These provisions have many different names, but are typically noted as:
949:: "As in all statutory construction cases, we begin with the language of the statute. The first step is to determine whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning with regard to the particular dispute in the case."
905:: "The principal command of statutory construction is that the court should determine and effectuate the intent of the legislature using the plain language of the statute as the primary indicator of legislative intent."
858:
312 F.3rd 1052 (2002), dissent at 328 F.3d 567 (2003) at 575, Judge Kleinfeld stated "it is 'a cardinal principle of statutory construction that we must give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute.'
1376:
If a statute administered by an agency is ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the courts will defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute. This rule of deference was formulated by the
1047:
In most legislatures internationally, these provisions of the bill simply give the legislature's goals and desired effects of the law, and are considered non-substantive and non-enforceable in and of themselves.
765:
Words are imperfect symbols to communicate intent. They are ambiguous and change in meaning over time. The word "let" used to mean 'prevent' or 'hinder' and now means 'allow'. The word "peculiar" is used to mean
885:: "In assessing statutory language, unless words have acquired a peculiar meaning, by virtue of statutory definition or judicial construction, they are to be construed in accordance with their common usage."
1610:, notably Articles 31–33. Some states (such as the United States) are not a parties to the treaty, but recognize that the Convention is, at least in part, merely a codification of customary international law.
2883:
Karl N. Llewellyn, Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and the Rules of Canons About How Statutes are to be Construed, 3 Vand. L. Rev. 395 (1950) republished with permission in 5 Green Bag 297 (2002).
815:
In Australia and in the United States, the courts have consistently stated that the text of the statute is used first, and it is read as it is written, using the ordinary meaning of the words of the statute.
2988:
Harold Anthony Lloyd, 'Recasting Canons of Interpretation and Construction into 'Canonical' Queries: Further Canonical Queries of Presented or Transmitted Text' (2023) 58 Wake Forest L Rev 1047, 1047-1086
2942:
1478:
Other scholars argue that the canons should be reformulated as "canonical" or archetypical queries helping to direct genuine inquiry rather than purporting to somehow help provide answers in themselves.
1396:
only when one interpretation was actually unconstitutional. The modern avoidance canon tells the court to choose a different interpretation when another interpretation merely raises constitutional doubts.
1382:
931:(1999) 21 Cal.4th 86, 94 .) Because the statutory language is generally the most reliable indicator of that intent, we look first at the words themselves, giving them their usual and ordinary meaning. (
1207:
grouped together have similar meaning, but are not equally comprehensive, a more general word will be limited and qualified by a more specific one. There is almost a gravitational pull on one another.
686:, the states will have authority over the relevant matter in their respective jurisdictions, unless the state's definitions of their statutes conflicts with federally established or recognized rights
761:
interprets how legislation should apply in a particular case as no legislation unambiguously and specifically addresses all matters. Legislation may contain uncertainties for a variety of reasons:
1587:
But it may also seem unfair to ignore the intent of the legislators, or the system of the statutes. So for instance in Dutch law, no general priority sequence for the above methods is recognized.
1424:
For jurisprudence in the United States, "an absurdity is not mere oddity. The absurdity bar is high, as it should be. The result must be preposterous, one that 'no reasonable person could intend
1331:, except where such would deprive the defendant of bedrock, foundational rights that the federal government intended to be the minimum floor that the states were not allowed to fall beneath:
1001:
A statute shall not be interpreted so as to be inconsistent with other statutes. Where there is an apparent inconsistency, the judiciary will attempt to provide a harmonious interpretation.
975:: "The first and often last step in interpreting a statute is to examine the language of the statute. We will not, however, interpret a statute that is clear and unambiguous on its face."
571:; but while Parliament has exclusive competence to legislate, the courts (mindful of their historic role of having developed the entire system of common law) retain sole competence to
946:
542:
3296:
3248:
2975:
2927:
3356:
1679:
are the two most prevalent methods of statutory interpretation. Also recognized is the theory of intentionalists, which is to prioritize and consider sources beyond the text.
988:
It is presumed that a statute will be interpreted so as to be internally consistent. A particular section of the statute shall not be divorced from the rest of the act. The
1417:
ambiguity. At times, courts are not "concerned with what parliament intended, but simply with what it has said in the statute". Different judges have different views. In
1405:
to local crimes. Therefore, the Court utilized the canon of constitutional avoidance and decided to "read the statute more narrowly, to exclude the defendant's conduct".
1265:(1804): "It has also been observed that an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains ..."
414:
189:
1347:: "statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of Indians with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit." This canon can be likened to the doctrine of
1155:
Where one reading of a statute would make one or more parts of the statute redundant and another reading would avoid the redundancy, the other reading is preferred.:
2894:
3215:
1528:(1689–1755) believed that courts should act as "the mouth of the law", but soon it was found that some interpretation is inevitable. Following the German scholar
588:, author of texts on statutory interpretation, there are no such simple devices to elucidate complex statutes, "nstead there are a thousand and one interpretative
1327:
804:
ambiguities. Statutory interpretation is the process of resolving those ambiguities and deciding how a particular bill or law will apply in a particular case.
1164:
There is a presumption that when similar statutory provisions are found in comparable statutory schemes, interpreters should presumptively apply the same way.
2289:
1060:
Also known as canons of construction, canons give common sense guidance to courts in interpreting the meaning of statutes. Most canons emerge from the
722:
632:
94:
49:
1130:
When writing statutes, the legislature intends to use ordinary English words in their ordinary senses. The United States Supreme Court discussed the
4597:
1607:
955:, 534 U.S. 438, 450 (2002); "nless otherwise defined, statutory words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning."
3263:
1628:
Over time, various methods of statutory construction have fallen in and out of favor. Some of the better-known rules of construction methods are:
1064:
process through the choices of judges. Critics of the use of canons argue that the canons constrain judges and limit the ability of the courts to
1281:(Australia). However, legislation that is intended to be consistent with fundamental rights can be overridden by clear and unambiguous language.
2749:
2660:
927:, 4th District: "Our role in construing a statute is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. (
407:
3384:
Menahem Pasternak, Christophe Rico, Tax Interpretation, Planning, and Avoidance: Some Linguistic Analysis, 23 Akron Tax Journal, 33 (2008) (
3401:
1726:
1721:
1438:
changes in a vague or unclear way, and to ensure that voters are able to hold the appropriate legislators responsible for the modification.
1273:
861:
1256:
499:
Statutes may be presumed to incorporate certain components, as Parliament is "presumed" to have intended their inclusion. For example:
141:
1872:
1378:
838:(1992). Indeed, "when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: 'judicial inquiry is complete.
113:
4023:
3581:
3480:
3353:
3134:
2496:
1915:
1343:
744:
654:
241:
223:
160:
63:
1119:
Textual canons are rules of thumb for understanding the words of the text. Some of the canons are still known by their traditional
2133:, 49 F. Supp. 846, 859 (W.D. La. 1943), where the issue involved interpretation of the words "board, lodging, or other facilities"
1823:, so in the UK an individual who is specifically targeted by a statute will normally have standing to bring a challenge by way of
1542:
Systematic interpretation: considering the context of provisions, if only by acknowledging in which chapter a provision is listed.
484:
Parliament", and the English courts developed three main rules (plus some minor ones) to assist them in the task. These were: the
4137:
4006:
400:
120:
4592:
3939:
3840:
3340:
3328:
Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decisions and the Rules or Canons About How Statutes Are to Be Construed 3 Vand. L. Rev. 395
871:: "Every part of an act is presumed to be of some effect and is not to be treated as meaningless unless absolutely necessary."
4099:
3733:
3080:
Hart & Sacks, Henry M. & Albert M. (1994). "The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law".
781:
Uncertainties may be added to the statute in the course of enactment, such as the need for compromise or catering to special
726:
636:
98:
1091:
670:
jurisdictions may presume that either federal or local government authority prevails in the absence of a defined rule. In
4685:
3452:
383:
373:
201:
127:
55:
3425:
3053:
Calabresi, Guido (2003). "An Introduction to Legal Thought: Four Approaches to Law and to the Allocation of Body Parts".
4259:
3738:
2143:
1685:"In contrast to purposivists, textualists focus on the words of a statute, emphasizing text over any unstated purpose."
845:
563:
are in conflict, there is a presumption that legislation takes precedence insofar as there is any inconsistency. In the
3320:
2461:
4254:
1309:(2008). This is almost a junior version of the vagueness doctrine, and can be used for both criminal or civil penalty.
924:
205:
109:
1289:
In construing an ambiguous criminal statute, the court should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the defendant. See
4229:
3728:
1529:
328:
774:
unusual, e.g. "kangaroos are peculiar to Australia", and "it's very peculiar to see a kangaroo outside Australia".
715:
625:
87:
4312:
2038:
2004:
1690:
962:
951:
868:
568:
2196:
Klimas, Tadas and Vaiciukaite, Jurate, "The Law of Recitals in European Community Legislation" (July 14, 2008).
438:. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and a straightforward meaning. But in many cases, there is some
4680:
4107:
4089:
2737:
2648:
2444:
2420:
2385:
1855:
1839:
1803:
1749:
972:
967:
Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. of Maryland v. Director of Finance for Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
902:
3758:
2810:
1 All ER 142, 143 (HL). The judgment, however, was affirmed on the basis of the statutory language regardless.
2264:
1616:
1245:
Substantive canons instruct the court to favor interpretations that promote certain values or policy results.
1188:("the express mention of one thing excludes all others" or "the expression of one is the exclusion of others")
1471:
argued that every canon had a "counter-canon" that would lead to the opposite interpretation of the statute.
4670:
4482:
4269:
3743:
3385:
2448:
2424:
2043:
2009:
1770:
1760:
1716:
882:
273:
259:
4675:
4537:
4522:
892:
682:, where it is presumed that if legislation is not enacted pursuant to a specific provision of the federal
358:
4641:
4234:
3912:
3723:
3290:
3242:
2969:
2921:
2703:, 134 S. Ct. 2077, 2088-2090 (2014) (quoting 18 U.S.C. 229(a)(1)(2014). Cited in Brannon, V. C. (2018).
532:
456:
134:
4362:
3708:
1432:
324:
2335:
4517:
3657:
3574:
2719:, 134 S. Ct. 2077, 2093 (2014) (quoting 18 U.S.C. 229(a)(1)(2014). Cited in Brannon, V. C. (2018).
2687:, 134 S. Ct. 2077, 2085 (2014) (quoting 18 U.S.C. 229(a)(1)(2014). Cited in Brannon, V. C. (2018).
1317:
854:
352:
320:
4332:
3991:
3845:
3830:
3808:
3552:
3532:
3485:
3475:
2128:
1807:
1706:
1660:
1651:
1539:
Historical interpretation: using the legislative history, to reveal the intent of the legislator.
1350:
1131:
823:
555:("of the same kind"), so that words are to be construed in sympathy with their immediate context.
368:
348:
294:
3367:
3415:
2067:"Using a moot to develop students' understanding of human cloning and statutory interpretation"
1943:
R v. Secretary of State for the Environment expert Spath Holme, (2001) 1 All ER 195, p. 216(HL)
1149:, where the term "chicken" was disputed as either a technical word or if plain meaning applied.
471:
Statutory interpretation first became significant in common law systems, of which historically
4317:
4239:
4077:
3820:
3815:
3768:
3693:
3687:
3527:
3445:
3216:"Textual Gerrymandering: The Eclipse of Republican Government in an Era of Statutory Populism"
3130:
3062:
2990:
2745:
2741:
2656:
2652:
2492:
2368:
2350:
2201:
2096:
1911:
1868:
1711:
1633:
1065:
493:
304:
3192:
2051:
2017:
1562:
different things to different people. The modern, common-law perception that courts actually
530:
A statute is presumed not to apply retrospectively (whereas the common law is "declaratory":
4322:
4289:
3788:
3652:
3647:
3612:
3107:
2086:
2078:
1735:
1487:
The common textual canons of statutory construction employed in American jurisprudence are:
667:
337:
2440:
2416:
2114:
Brannon, Valerie (February 11, 2021). "Statutory Interpretation: Theories, Tools, Trends".
789:
Therefore, the court must try to determine how a statute should be enforced. This requires
4571:
4544:
4532:
4512:
4446:
4441:
4424:
4404:
4399:
4379:
4244:
4224:
4219:
4122:
4082:
3793:
3718:
3642:
3627:
3547:
3360:
2317:
1824:
1731:
585:
551:
511:
477:
388:
343:
3314:
CRS Report for Congress: "Statutory interpretation: General Principles and Recent Trends"
2265:"Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. Int'l Sales Corp., 190 F. Supp. 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1960)"
2610:
521:
A statute is presumed not to remove an individual's liberty, vested rights, or property.
4648:
4456:
4374:
3963:
3929:
3880:
3865:
3637:
3542:
3522:
3512:
3151:
2236:
2091:
2066:
1954:
1745:
1550:
1468:
1450:
1284:
782:
564:
1255:
National statute must be construed so as not to conflict with international law. See
4664:
4502:
4461:
4347:
4327:
4299:
4249:
4214:
4188:
4183:
4176:
4127:
4067:
3907:
3897:
3855:
3778:
3773:
3703:
3662:
3586:
2632:
2616:
2400:
2220:
1645:
1262:
1227:
876:
835:
675:
485:
378:
299:
17:
2032:
4634:
4384:
4352:
4307:
4045:
4040:
4011:
3924:
3902:
3870:
3803:
3783:
3677:
3617:
3607:
3559:
3517:
3495:
3438:
2775:
Legislative History and Statutory Interpretation: The Relevance of English Practice
1639:
1467:
sense of justification to their otherwise arbitrary process. In a classic article,
683:
489:
3152:"A Decision Theory of Statutory Interpretation: Legislative History by the Rules"
1955:"A Decision Theory of Statutory Interpretation: Legislative History by the Rules"
1893:
1446:(Subsequent laws repeal those before enacted to the contrary, aka "Last in Time")
4615:
4556:
4497:
4487:
4284:
4279:
4117:
4018:
3934:
3893:
3860:
3825:
3748:
3672:
3622:
3537:
2355:
1765:
1755:
1672:
1606:
The interpretation of international treaties is governed by another treaty, the
1598:
in exceptional cases, if otherwise a patently unreasonable result would follow.
1525:
704:
614:
472:
452:
431:
333:
76:
3336:
636 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1981) discusses most aspects of statutory construction.
451:
may apply rules of statutory interpretation both to legislation enacted by the
4620:
4549:
4429:
4367:
4112:
4033:
4028:
3986:
3968:
3956:
3917:
3763:
3753:
3713:
3698:
3682:
3632:
3569:
3564:
1739:
1676:
1656:
1454:
1061:
460:
444:
363:
3373:
3313:
2147:
2082:
1475:"quantifier domain restriction canon" in the interpretation of legal rules.
4527:
4492:
4434:
4409:
4274:
4171:
4159:
4144:
4132:
4060:
3978:
3951:
3835:
1693:. Critiques of modern textualism on the United States Supreme Court abound.
1536:
Grammatical interpretation: using the literal meaning of the statutory text.
758:
679:
448:
439:
3066:
2100:
527:
A statute is presumed not to empower a person to commit a criminal offence.
2874:
John F Manning, 'The absurdity doctrine' (2003) 116 Harv L Rev 2387, 2390.
434:. Some amount of interpretation is often necessary when a case involves a
4576:
4561:
4264:
4149:
3946:
3490:
3386:
http://www.uakron.edu/law/lawreview/taxjournal/atj23/docs/Pasternak08.pdf
3111:
2853:, 491 U.S. 440, 470–71 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment)).
2290:"A Guide to Reading, Interpreting and Applying Statutes - Georgetown Law"
879:, 149 S.E. 541, 542 (1929). This is known as the rule against surplusage.
560:
505:
3098:
Manning, John F. (2006). "What Divides Textualists from Purposivists?".
2847:
Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Inc. v. United States EPA
1271:
Statute does not violate fundamental societal values. See, for example,
4466:
4414:
4394:
4342:
4154:
4072:
3888:
3850:
3798:
1931:
729: in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
639: in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
435:
3093:
3091:
828:
Consumer Product Safety Commission et al. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. et al.
4566:
4419:
4164:
4055:
4050:
3996:
3667:
1932:
Vishnu Pratap Sugar Works (Private) Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Stamps
1820:
1412:
The legislature did not intend an absurd or manifestly unjust result.
1341:
National statute must be construed in favor of Native Americans. See
671:
2205:
1998:
1987:
GP Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 13th Edition, p.4
4507:
4451:
4357:
4198:
4001:
3500:
3346:
3341:
Canons of Construction and the Elusive Quest for Neutral Reasoning
2324:(7th ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing. p. 602.
1120:
3323:
is the authoritative text on the rules of statutory construction.
1908:
Understanding Common Law Legislation: Drafting and Interpretation
1557:), as it appears from legislative history, or other observations.
4389:
4337:
4193:
3591:
3507:
2192:
2190:
1978:
Venkataswami Naidu v. Narasram Naraindas, AIR 1966 SC 361, p.363
3434:
3391:
Victoria F. Nourse, Misreading Law Misreading Democracy (2016).
3264:"Textualism 3.0: Statutory Interpretation After Justice Scalia"
2691:(CRS Report No. R45153). Congressional Research Service. 29–30.
2503:
Blurred signposts to criminality will not suffice to create it.
1566:
law is very different. In a German perception, courts can only
1449:
When two statutes conflict, the one enacted last prevails. See
3461:
3129:(1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford university press. p. 104.
1078:
698:
608:
503:
Offences defined in criminal statutes are presumed to require
172:
70:
29:
3381:, by Ruth Sullivan, 1997. Canadian examples and explanations.
2734:
Statutory Default Rules: How to Interpret Unclear Legislation
2645:
Statutory Default Rules: How to Interpret Unclear Legislation
865:, 529 U.S. 362, 404, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000)."
188:
deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a
2941:
Tobia, Kevin; Slocum, Brian G.; Nourse, Victoria F. (2022).
2723:(CRS Report No. R45153). Congressional Research Service. 30.
2707:(CRS Report No. R45153). Congressional Research Service. 30.
2437:
Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd v Australian Workers' Union
1852:
R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport (No 2)
1810:
470, 53 Cr App R 221, 1 All ER 347, HL, reversing 2 QB 418
1312:
Avoidance of abrogation of state sovereignty (United States)
3316:(public domain - can be copied into article with citations)
2991:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4369755
1614:
preparatory works, also known by the French designation of
518:
A statute is presumed to make no changes in the common law.
1867:
Rupert Cross, Statutory interpretation, 3rd Edition, p.34
1197:
canon is not favored by most scholars, lawyers, or judges.
1500:– "the express mention of one thing excludes all others"
3370:, 59 NYU Annual Survey Of American Law 231, 238 (2003).
3363:, The Champion Magazine (NACDL), January/February 2006.
3193:"The Role of Original Intent in Statutory Construction"
2820:
Texas Brine Co. LLC v. American Arbitration Association
1095:
819:
Below are various quotes on this topic from US courts:
197:
3430:
3347:"Llewellyn's Dueling Canons, One to Seven: A Critique"
1532:(1779–1861) the four main interpretation methods are:
3349:. New York Law School Law Review, Vol. 51, Fall 2006.
3082:
William N. Eskridge Jr. & Phillip P. Frickey Eds.
2721:
Statutory Interpretation: Theories, Tools, and Trends
2705:
Statutory Interpretation: Theories, Tools, and Trends
2689:
Statutory Interpretation: Theories, Tools, and Trends
1147:
Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. Int'l Sales Corp.
947:
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
480:, the decision would become binding on later courts.
3277:(3). Archived from the original on September 2, 2020
2908:(1). Archived from the original on November 30, 2018
4585:
4475:
4298:
4207:
4098:
3977:
3879:
3600:
3468:
3176:Taylor, George H. (1995). "Structural Textualism".
2198:
ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law
1392:
Avoidance canon (canon of constitutional avoidance)
1222:("the general does not derogate from the specific")
430:is the process by which courts interpret and apply
101:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
3214:Eskridge, William N.; Nourse, Victoria F. (2021).
2031:
1997:
917:, 117 N.M. 346, 353, 871 P.2d 1352, 1359 (1994);
549:It is presumed that a statute will be interpreted
3334:United States of America v. William C. Scrimgeour
2956:. Archived from the original on February 18, 2022
3368:"Dice Loading" Rules Of Statutory Interpretation
3295:: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (
3247:: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (
3007:(7th ed.). Thomas Reuters. p. § 47:17.
2974:: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (
2926:: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (
2553:, 431 U.S. 563 (1977) (Stewart, J., dissenting);
2172:, 6th Edition, Vol. 1A, §20.12 (West Group 2000)
1369:Deference to administrative interpretations (US
524:A statute is presumed not to apply to the Crown.
1579:All of the above methods may seem reasonable:
796:Moreover, courts must also often view a case's
3374:The Rules of Statutory Construction (Virginia)
2834:Reading Law: the interpretation of legal texts
2541:, 504 U.S. 255 (1992) (Thomas, J., dissenting)
2489:Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts
2259:
2257:
1515:Common, technical, legal, or trade definition.
1182:, however most judges do not hold this belief.
3446:
3229:. Archived from the original on March 8, 2022
2587:Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs
1545:Teleological interpretation: considering the
1443:Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant
1328:Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs
1268:Interpretation in light of fundamental values
1043:, or of either house in multi-chamber bodies.
408:
186:The examples and perspective in this article
8:
3017:2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47:23
2851:Public Citizen v. U.S. Department of Justice
2849:, 846 F.3d 492, 517 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting
2629:Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council
1571:
1384:Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council
3354:"Statutory Construction: Not For The Timid"
2943:"Statutory Interpretation from the Outside"
2065:Pattinson, Shaun D.; Kind, Vanessa (2017).
1894:Bennion on statutory interpretation: a code
1883:SALMOND: "Jurisprudence"11th Edition, p.152
1593:
1441:
1348:
64:Learn how and when to remove these messages
3453:
3439:
3431:
2130:Walling v. Peavy-Wilson Lumber Co., No 213
415:
401:
255:
2487:Scalia, Antonin; Garne, Bryan A. (2012).
2184:2d, Vol. 73, "Statutes" (West Group 2001)
2090:
1297:(declining to apply the rule of lenity);
745:Learn how and when to remove this message
655:Learn how and when to remove this message
242:Learn how and when to remove this message
224:Learn how and when to remove this message
161:Learn how and when to remove this message
4598:History of the American legal profession
3197:Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy
1608:Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
27:Judicial interpretation of statutory law
2832:Scalia, Antonin; Garner, Bryan (2012).
1910:. Oxford University Press. p. 12.
1782:
1494:– "of the same kinds, class, or nature"
1170:("of the same kinds, class, or nature")
312:
286:
265:
258:
3288:
3240:
3191:Easterbrook, Frank (January 1, 1988).
2967:
2919:
899:, 365 Ark. 465, 231 S.W.3d 619. (2006)
887:Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.
2231:
2229:
1506:– "a word is known by its associates"
1498:Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
1400:The avoidance canon was discussed in
1203:("a word is known by its associates")
1186:Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
979:, 757 N.E.2d 1037, 1039, 1040 (2001).
943:(People) (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1033, 1040
889:, 923 P.2d 783, 787-88 (Alaska 1996);
509:(a guilty intention by the accused):
7:
3005:2A Sutherland Statutory Construction
2462:"A man's jail term turns on a comma"
2398:Holy Trinity Church v. United States
2237:"Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893)"
2146:. The European Union. Archived from
2052:participating institution membership
2018:participating institution membership
1727:Legal interpretation in South Africa
1722:Indeterminacy debate in legal theory
1274:Holy Trinity Church v. United States
832:Connecticut National Bank v. Germain
727:adding citations to reliable sources
637:adding citations to reliable sources
605:Conflict of laws within a federation
99:adding citations to reliable sources
2348:Finch, Emily and Fafinski, Stefan.
1512:– "upon the same matter or subject"
1419:Nothman v. London Borough of Barnet
959:, 23 F.3d 670, 677 (2nd Cir. 1994).
2799:Nothman v London Borough of Barnet
1220:Generalia specialibus non derogant
969:, 343 Md. 567, 683 A.2d 512 (1996)
313:General theories of interpretation
25:
3582:Restitution and unjust enrichment
3321:Sutherland Statutory Construction
3041:Sutherland Statutory Construction
3028:Sutherland Statutory Construction
2762:Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co.
2612:Chickasaw Nation v. United States
2351:Law Express: English Legal System
2170:Sutherland Statutory Construction
1793:, Liverpool John Mores University
1791:Notes on the English Legal System
1344:Chickasaw Nation v. United States
984:Internal and external consistency
45:This article has multiple issues.
4629:
4628:
4614:
1667:Statutory interpretation methods
1082:
915:State ex rel. Helman v. Gallegos
703:
613:
177:
75:
34:
4593:History of the legal profession
2836:. Thomson Reuters. p. 237.
2318:Garner, Bryan A.. Ed. In Chief.
1934:, U.P., AIR 1968 SC 102, p. 104
939:(2002) 29 Cal.4th 105, 112 .)"
921:, 2010-NMSC-041, August 9, 2010
714:needs additional citations for
624:needs additional citations for
287:General rules of interpretation
86:needs additional citations for
53:or discuss these issues on the
3223:New York University Law Review
2118:(published April 5, 2018): 25.
2116:Congressional Research Service
1338:'Indian' canon (United States)
459:such as administrative agency
1:
2773:William S Jordan III (1994),
2673:United States v. Jin Fuey Moy
1161:("part of the same material")
1005:Statements of the legislature
374:Common good constitutionalism
274:Constitutional interpretation
3262:Nourse, Victoria F. (2019).
3150:Nourse, Victoria F. (2012).
3125:Katzmann, Robert A. (2014).
2893:Nourse, Victoria F. (2018).
2447:309 (2 September 2004),
1953:Nourse, Victoria F. (2012).
1771:UK Interpretation Act (1850)
1766:Sui generis § Statutory
1258:Murray v. The Charming Betsy
957:United States v. Piervinanzi
873:Red Ash Coal Corp. v. Absher
846:9th Circuit Court of Appeals
596:Intention of the legislature
3426:Statutory Construction Blog
2822:, 955 F.3d 482, 486 (2020).
2675:, 241 U.S. 394, 401 (1916).
1906:Bennion, F (May 28, 2009).
1896:, accessed 25 November 2022
1379:United States Supreme Court
952:Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co.
925:California Court of Appeals
567:this principle is known as
200:, discuss the issue on the
4702:
4260:International legal theory
3739:International slavery laws
3734:International human rights
3729:International criminal law
2217:Caminetti v. United States
1671:Within the United States,
1530:Friedrich Carl von Savigny
1225:
1213:("rendering each to each")
1136:Caminetti v. United States
1029:, sometimes suffixed with
110:"Statutory interpretation"
4608:
4313:Administration of justice
3416:Resources in your library
2865:, 282 U.S. 55, 60 (1930).
2071:Medical Law International
2039:Oxford English Dictionary
2005:Oxford English Dictionary
1211:Reddendo singula singulis
963:Maryland Court of Appeals
869:Supreme Court of Virginia
569:parliamentary sovereignty
4090:Basic structure doctrine
3940:Natural and legal rights
3821:Public international law
3407:Statutory interpretation
3379:Statutory Interpretation
3339:Brudney & Ditslear,
2738:Harvard University Press
2649:Harvard University Press
2515:McNally v. United States
2339:, 984 S.W.2d 695 (1998).
2083:10.1177/0968533217726350
1930:Supreme Court of India,
1291:McNally v. United States
1066:legislate from the bench
973:Indiana Court of Appeals
941:Alford v. Superior Court
903:New Mexico Supreme Court
478:reasons for the decision
428:Statutory interpretation
279:Statutory interpretation
4270:Principle of typicality
3744:International trade law
3366:Corrigan & Thomas,
3100:SSRN Electronic Journal
2044:Oxford University Press
2010:Oxford University Press
1761:Statutory term analysis
1717:Judicial interpretation
1524:The French philosopher
1307:United States v. Santos
1152:Rule against surplusage
883:Supreme Court of Alaska
260:Judicial interpretation
3359:June 29, 2011, at the
2801:1 All E.R. 1243, 1246.
2764:, 490 U.S. 504 (1989).
2643:Einer Elhauge (2008).
2601:, 380 U.S. 479 (1965).
2369:"US Legal definitions"
2322:Black's Law Dictionary
2297:www.law.georgetown.edu
2182:American Jurisprudence
1602:International treaties
1594:
1572:
1554:
1442:
1349:
893:Arkansas Supreme Court
848:: In the dissent from
791:statutory construction
559:Where legislation and
359:Strict constructionism
4265:Principle of legality
4024:Delegated legislation
3724:Intellectual property
2529:, 524 U.S. 125 (1998)
2517:, 483 U.S. 350 (1987)
2441:[2004] HCA 40
2417:[1994] HCA 15
1789:Trevor Lyons (2016),
1691:legislative supremacy
1659:vs. consideration of
1617:travaux préparatoires
1402:Bond v. United States
836:112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149
457:delegated legislation
18:Canon of construction
4686:Legal interpretation
4483:Barristers' chambers
4425:Legal representation
4363:Justice of the peace
3709:Financial regulation
3112:10.2139/ssrn.2849247
2789:3 QBD 693, 707 (CA).
2787:R v Hertford College
2599:Dombrowski v Pfister
1892:Stanford Libraries,
1520:European perceptions
1433:Clear statement rule
1333:Dombrowski v Pfister
1263:6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64
1096:adding missing items
842:" 503 U.S. 249, 254.
723:improve this article
633:improve this article
206:create a new article
198:improve this article
95:improve this article
4518:Election commission
4230:Expressive function
3759:Landlord–tenant law
3658:Consumer protection
3345:Sinclair, Michael,
3055:Stanford Law Review
2950:Columbia Law Review
2863:Crooks v. Harrelson
2633:467 U.S. 837 (1984)
2589:538 U.S. 721 (2003)
2577:546 U.S. 243 (2006)
2565:501 U.S. 452 (1991)
2563:Gregory v. Ashcroft
2551:Scarborough v. U.S.
2336:State Farm v. Brown
2042:(Online ed.).
2008:(Online ed.).
1318:Gregory v. Ashcroft
1303:Scarborough v. U.S.
929:People v. Jefferson
855:Silveira v. Lockyer
447:jurisdictions, the
353:legislative history
321:Living Constitution
4476:Legal institutions
4343:Lawsuit/Litigation
4333:Dispute resolution
4138:Catholic canon law
3846:State of emergency
3809:Will and testament
3533:Law of obligations
3486:Constitutional law
3476:Administrative law
3271:Alabama Law Review
3003:Singer, Norman J.
2575:Gonzales v. Oregon
2527:Muscarello v. U.S.
2468:. November 4, 2015
2168:Norman J. Singer,
1707:Interpretation Act
1661:legislative intent
1652:purposive approach
1409:Avoiding absurdity
1351:contra proferentem
1323:Gonzales v. Oregon
1295:Muscarello v. U.S.
1241:Substantive canons
1132:plain meaning rule
1094:; you can help by
1075:Substantive canons
933:People v. Lawrence
919:New Mexico v. Juan
897:Farrell v. Farrell
862:Williams v. Taylor
824:U.S. Supreme Court
579:General principles
369:Purposive approach
349:legislative intent
295:Plain meaning rule
4658:
4657:
4318:Constitutionalism
4240:Law and economics
4078:Act of parliament
3816:Product liability
3769:Legal archaeology
3694:Environmental law
3688:Entertainment law
3528:International law
3402:Library resources
3319:The multi-volume
2777:, 29 USF L Rev 1.
2750:978-0-674-02460-1
2661:978-0-674-02460-1
2200:, Vol. 15, 2008.
2150:on March 17, 2011
2050:(Subscription or
2016:(Subscription or
1802:Sweet v Parsley
1712:Judicial activism
1573:Rechtsfortbildung
1504:Noscitur a sociis
1201:Noscitur a sociis
1180:Noscitur a sociis
1141:Technical meaning
1112:
1111:
1041:Sense of Congress
798:statutory context
755:
754:
747:
665:
664:
657:
425:
424:
329:Living instrument
252:
251:
244:
234:
233:
226:
208:, as appropriate.
171:
170:
163:
145:
68:
16:(Redirected from
4693:
4633:
4632:
4631:
4619:
4618:
4442:Question of fact
4323:Criminal justice
3653:Construction law
3648:Conflict of laws
3613:Agricultural law
3455:
3448:
3441:
3432:
3326:Karl Llewellyn,
3301:
3300:
3294:
3286:
3284:
3282:
3268:
3259:
3253:
3252:
3246:
3238:
3236:
3234:
3220:
3211:
3205:
3204:
3188:
3182:
3181:
3173:
3167:
3166:
3159:Yale Law Journal
3156:
3147:
3141:
3140:
3127:Judging statutes
3122:
3116:
3115:
3095:
3086:
3085:
3077:
3071:
3070:
3061:(6): 2113–2151.
3050:
3044:
3037:
3031:
3024:
3018:
3015:
3009:
3008:
3000:
2994:
2986:
2980:
2979:
2973:
2965:
2963:
2961:
2947:
2938:
2932:
2931:
2925:
2917:
2915:
2913:
2902:Texas Law Review
2899:
2895:"The Canon Wars"
2890:
2884:
2881:
2875:
2872:
2866:
2860:
2854:
2844:
2838:
2837:
2829:
2823:
2817:
2811:
2808:
2802:
2796:
2790:
2784:
2778:
2771:
2765:
2759:
2753:
2730:
2724:
2714:
2708:
2698:
2692:
2682:
2676:
2670:
2664:
2641:
2635:
2626:
2620:
2608:
2602:
2596:
2590:
2584:
2578:
2572:
2566:
2560:
2554:
2548:
2542:
2536:
2530:
2524:
2518:
2512:
2506:
2505:
2491:. Thomson/West.
2484:
2478:
2477:
2475:
2473:
2458:
2452:
2434:
2428:
2413:Coco v The Queen
2410:
2404:
2395:
2389:
2379:
2373:
2372:
2365:
2359:
2346:
2340:
2332:
2326:
2325:
2314:
2308:
2307:
2305:
2303:
2294:
2286:
2280:
2279:
2277:
2275:
2261:
2252:
2251:
2249:
2247:
2233:
2224:
2214:
2208:
2194:
2185:
2179:
2173:
2166:
2160:
2159:
2157:
2155:
2140:
2134:
2126:
2120:
2119:
2111:
2105:
2104:
2094:
2062:
2056:
2055:
2047:
2035:
2028:
2022:
2021:
2013:
2001:
1994:
1988:
1985:
1979:
1976:
1970:
1969:
1962:Yale Law Journal
1959:
1950:
1944:
1941:
1935:
1928:
1922:
1921:
1903:
1897:
1890:
1884:
1881:
1875:
1865:
1859:
1849:
1843:
1834:
1828:
1817:
1811:
1800:
1794:
1787:
1736:Original meaning
1597:
1575:
1549:of the statute (
1445:
1427:
1355:in contract law.
1354:
1279:Coco v The Queen
1107:
1104:
1086:
1085:
1079:
937:People v. Acosta
877:153 Va. 332, 335
841:
750:
743:
739:
736:
730:
707:
699:
660:
653:
649:
646:
640:
617:
609:
417:
410:
403:
338:original meaning
256:
247:
240:
229:
222:
218:
215:
209:
181:
180:
173:
166:
159:
155:
152:
146:
144:
103:
79:
71:
60:
38:
37:
30:
21:
4701:
4700:
4696:
4695:
4694:
4692:
4691:
4690:
4681:Legal reasoning
4661:
4660:
4659:
4654:
4627:
4613:
4604:
4581:
4572:Political party
4545:Legal education
4533:Law enforcement
4513:Court of equity
4471:
4447:Question of law
4400:Practice of law
4380:Judicial review
4294:
4245:Legal formalism
4225:Comparative law
4220:Contract theory
4203:
4123:Legal pluralism
4094:
4083:Act of Congress
4007:Executive order
3973:
3875:
3794:Nationality law
3719:Immigration law
3643:Competition law
3596:
3464:
3459:
3422:
3421:
3420:
3410:
3409:
3405:
3398:
3361:Wayback Machine
3310:
3308:Further reading
3305:
3304:
3287:
3280:
3278:
3266:
3261:
3260:
3256:
3239:
3232:
3230:
3218:
3213:
3212:
3208:
3190:
3189:
3185:
3175:
3174:
3170:
3154:
3149:
3148:
3144:
3137:
3124:
3123:
3119:
3097:
3096:
3089:
3079:
3078:
3074:
3052:
3051:
3047:
3038:
3034:
3025:
3021:
3016:
3012:
3002:
3001:
2997:
2987:
2983:
2966:
2959:
2957:
2945:
2940:
2939:
2935:
2918:
2911:
2909:
2897:
2892:
2891:
2887:
2882:
2878:
2873:
2869:
2861:
2857:
2845:
2841:
2831:
2830:
2826:
2818:
2814:
2809:
2805:
2797:
2793:
2785:
2781:
2772:
2768:
2760:
2756:
2732:Einer Elhauge.
2731:
2727:
2715:
2711:
2699:
2695:
2683:
2679:
2671:
2667:
2642:
2638:
2627:
2623:
2609:
2605:
2597:
2593:
2585:
2581:
2573:
2569:
2561:
2557:
2549:
2545:
2537:
2533:
2525:
2521:
2513:
2509:
2499:
2486:
2485:
2481:
2471:
2469:
2460:
2459:
2455:
2435:
2431:
2411:
2407:
2396:
2392:
2380:
2376:
2367:
2366:
2362:
2347:
2343:
2333:
2329:
2316:
2315:
2311:
2301:
2299:
2292:
2288:
2287:
2283:
2273:
2271:
2263:
2262:
2255:
2245:
2243:
2235:
2234:
2227:
2215:
2211:
2195:
2188:
2180:
2176:
2167:
2163:
2153:
2151:
2142:
2141:
2137:
2127:
2123:
2113:
2112:
2108:
2064:
2063:
2059:
2049:
2030:
2029:
2025:
2015:
1996:
1995:
1991:
1986:
1982:
1977:
1973:
1957:
1952:
1951:
1947:
1942:
1938:
1929:
1925:
1918:
1905:
1904:
1900:
1891:
1887:
1882:
1878:
1866:
1862:
1850:
1846:
1835:
1831:
1825:judicial review
1818:
1814:
1801:
1797:
1788:
1784:
1779:
1732:Original intent
1703:
1669:
1626:
1604:
1522:
1510:In pari materia
1492:Ejusdem generis
1485:
1464:
1425:
1362:
1243:
1230:
1194:Expressio unius
1178:as a subset of
1176:Ejusdem generis
1168:Ejusdem generis
1159:In Pari Materia
1117:
1108:
1102:
1099:
1083:
1058:
1007:
996:eiusdem generis
991:ejusdem generis
986:
977:Ashley v. State
911:State v. Rowell
839:
783:interest groups
778:fertilisation?)
751:
740:
734:
731:
720:
708:
697:
692:
661:
650:
644:
641:
630:
618:
607:
598:
586:Francis Bennion
581:
552:ejusdem generis
512:Sweet v Parsley
469:
421:
389:Legal formalism
346:
344:Original intent
248:
237:
236:
235:
230:
219:
213:
210:
195:
182:
178:
167:
156:
150:
147:
104:
102:
92:
80:
39:
35:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
4699:
4697:
4689:
4688:
4683:
4678:
4673:
4671:Sources of law
4663:
4662:
4656:
4655:
4653:
4652:
4645:
4638:
4624:
4621:Law portal
4609:
4606:
4605:
4603:
4602:
4601:
4600:
4589:
4587:
4583:
4582:
4580:
4579:
4574:
4569:
4564:
4559:
4554:
4553:
4552:
4542:
4541:
4540:
4530:
4525:
4520:
4515:
4510:
4505:
4500:
4495:
4490:
4485:
4479:
4477:
4473:
4472:
4470:
4469:
4464:
4459:
4457:Trial advocacy
4454:
4449:
4444:
4439:
4438:
4437:
4432:
4427:
4422:
4417:
4412:
4407:
4397:
4392:
4387:
4382:
4377:
4372:
4371:
4370:
4365:
4355:
4350:
4345:
4340:
4335:
4330:
4325:
4320:
4315:
4310:
4304:
4302:
4296:
4295:
4293:
4292:
4287:
4282:
4277:
4272:
4267:
4262:
4257:
4252:
4247:
4242:
4237:
4232:
4227:
4222:
4217:
4211:
4209:
4205:
4204:
4202:
4201:
4196:
4191:
4186:
4181:
4180:
4179:
4169:
4168:
4167:
4162:
4157:
4152:
4147:
4142:
4141:
4140:
4125:
4120:
4115:
4110:
4104:
4102:
4096:
4095:
4093:
4092:
4087:
4086:
4085:
4080:
4075:
4065:
4064:
4063:
4053:
4048:
4043:
4038:
4037:
4036:
4031:
4026:
4016:
4015:
4014:
4009:
4004:
3994:
3989:
3987:Ballot measure
3983:
3981:
3975:
3974:
3972:
3971:
3966:
3964:Legal treatise
3961:
3960:
3959:
3954:
3944:
3943:
3942:
3932:
3930:Letters patent
3927:
3922:
3921:
3920:
3910:
3905:
3900:
3891:
3885:
3883:
3881:Sources of law
3877:
3876:
3874:
3873:
3868:
3866:Unenforced law
3863:
3858:
3853:
3848:
3843:
3838:
3833:
3828:
3823:
3818:
3813:
3812:
3811:
3806:
3796:
3791:
3786:
3781:
3776:
3771:
3766:
3761:
3756:
3751:
3746:
3741:
3736:
3731:
3726:
3721:
3716:
3711:
3706:
3701:
3696:
3691:
3685:
3680:
3675:
3670:
3665:
3660:
3655:
3650:
3645:
3640:
3638:Commercial law
3635:
3630:
3625:
3620:
3615:
3610:
3604:
3602:
3598:
3597:
3595:
3594:
3589:
3584:
3579:
3578:
3577:
3567:
3562:
3557:
3556:
3555:
3550:
3540:
3535:
3530:
3525:
3520:
3515:
3510:
3505:
3504:
3503:
3493:
3488:
3483:
3478:
3472:
3470:
3466:
3465:
3460:
3458:
3457:
3450:
3443:
3435:
3429:
3428:
3419:
3418:
3412:
3411:
3400:
3399:
3397:
3396:External links
3394:
3393:
3392:
3389:
3382:
3376:
3371:
3364:
3350:
3343:
3337:
3331:
3324:
3317:
3309:
3306:
3303:
3302:
3254:
3206:
3183:
3168:
3142:
3135:
3117:
3087:
3072:
3045:
3032:
3019:
3010:
2995:
2981:
2933:
2885:
2876:
2867:
2855:
2839:
2824:
2812:
2803:
2791:
2779:
2766:
2754:
2725:
2709:
2693:
2677:
2665:
2636:
2621:
2603:
2591:
2579:
2567:
2555:
2543:
2531:
2519:
2507:
2497:
2479:
2453:
2429:
2405:
2390:
2374:
2360:
2341:
2327:
2309:
2281:
2253:
2225:
2209:
2186:
2174:
2161:
2135:
2121:
2106:
2077:(3): 111–133.
2057:
2023:
1989:
1980:
1971:
1945:
1936:
1923:
1916:
1898:
1885:
1876:
1873:978-0406049711
1860:
1844:
1829:
1812:
1795:
1781:
1780:
1778:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1768:
1763:
1758:
1753:
1746:Pepper v. Hart
1742:
1729:
1724:
1719:
1714:
1709:
1702:
1699:
1668:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1654:
1648:
1642:
1636:
1625:
1622:
1603:
1600:
1589:
1588:
1585:
1559:
1558:
1543:
1540:
1537:
1521:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1513:
1507:
1501:
1495:
1484:
1481:
1469:Karl Llewellyn
1463:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1451:implied repeal
1447:
1439:
1435:
1414:
1413:
1410:
1398:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1388:
1374:
1361:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1339:
1336:
1313:
1310:
1287:
1285:Rule of lenity
1282:
1269:
1266:
1253:
1250:Charming Betsy
1242:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1226:Main article:
1223:
1217:
1214:
1208:
1204:
1198:
1189:
1183:
1171:
1165:
1162:
1156:
1153:
1150:
1142:
1139:
1128:
1116:
1115:Textual canons
1113:
1110:
1109:
1089:
1087:
1077:
1076:
1073:
1072:Textual canons
1057:
1054:
1045:
1044:
1038:
1024:
1018:
1006:
1003:
985:
982:
981:
980:
970:
960:
944:
922:
907:State v. Ogden
900:
890:
880:
866:
843:
787:
786:
779:
775:
753:
752:
711:
709:
702:
696:
693:
691:
688:
663:
662:
621:
619:
612:
606:
603:
597:
594:
580:
577:
565:United Kingdom
557:
556:
547:
537:
528:
525:
522:
519:
516:
468:
465:
423:
422:
420:
419:
412:
405:
397:
394:
393:
392:
391:
386:
381:
376:
371:
366:
361:
356:
341:
331:
315:
314:
310:
309:
308:
307:
302:
297:
289:
288:
284:
283:
282:
281:
276:
268:
267:
263:
262:
250:
249:
232:
231:
192:of the subject
190:worldwide view
185:
183:
176:
169:
168:
83:
81:
74:
69:
43:
42:
40:
33:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4698:
4687:
4684:
4682:
4679:
4677:
4676:Statutory law
4674:
4672:
4669:
4668:
4666:
4651:
4650:
4646:
4644:
4643:
4639:
4637:
4636:
4625:
4623:
4622:
4617:
4611:
4610:
4607:
4599:
4596:
4595:
4594:
4591:
4590:
4588:
4584:
4578:
4575:
4573:
4570:
4568:
4565:
4563:
4560:
4558:
4555:
4551:
4548:
4547:
4546:
4543:
4539:
4536:
4535:
4534:
4531:
4529:
4526:
4524:
4521:
4519:
4516:
4514:
4511:
4509:
4506:
4504:
4503:Civil society
4501:
4499:
4496:
4494:
4491:
4489:
4486:
4484:
4481:
4480:
4478:
4474:
4468:
4465:
4463:
4462:Trier of fact
4460:
4458:
4455:
4453:
4450:
4448:
4445:
4443:
4440:
4436:
4433:
4431:
4428:
4426:
4423:
4421:
4418:
4416:
4413:
4411:
4408:
4406:
4403:
4402:
4401:
4398:
4396:
4393:
4391:
4388:
4386:
4383:
4381:
4378:
4376:
4373:
4369:
4366:
4364:
4361:
4360:
4359:
4356:
4354:
4351:
4349:
4348:Legal opinion
4346:
4344:
4341:
4339:
4336:
4334:
4331:
4329:
4328:Court-martial
4326:
4324:
4321:
4319:
4316:
4314:
4311:
4309:
4306:
4305:
4303:
4301:
4300:Jurisprudence
4297:
4291:
4288:
4286:
4283:
4281:
4278:
4276:
4273:
4271:
4268:
4266:
4263:
4261:
4258:
4256:
4253:
4251:
4248:
4246:
4243:
4241:
4238:
4236:
4233:
4231:
4228:
4226:
4223:
4221:
4218:
4216:
4213:
4212:
4210:
4206:
4200:
4197:
4195:
4192:
4190:
4189:Statutory law
4187:
4185:
4184:Socialist law
4182:
4178:
4177:Byzantine law
4175:
4174:
4173:
4170:
4166:
4163:
4161:
4158:
4156:
4153:
4151:
4148:
4146:
4143:
4139:
4136:
4135:
4134:
4131:
4130:
4129:
4128:Religious law
4126:
4124:
4121:
4119:
4116:
4114:
4111:
4109:
4106:
4105:
4103:
4101:
4100:Legal systems
4097:
4091:
4088:
4084:
4081:
4079:
4076:
4074:
4071:
4070:
4069:
4068:Statutory law
4066:
4062:
4059:
4058:
4057:
4054:
4052:
4049:
4047:
4044:
4042:
4039:
4035:
4032:
4030:
4027:
4025:
4022:
4021:
4020:
4017:
4013:
4010:
4008:
4005:
4003:
4000:
3999:
3998:
3995:
3993:
3990:
3988:
3985:
3984:
3982:
3980:
3976:
3970:
3967:
3965:
3962:
3958:
3955:
3953:
3950:
3949:
3948:
3945:
3941:
3938:
3937:
3936:
3933:
3931:
3928:
3926:
3923:
3919:
3916:
3915:
3914:
3911:
3909:
3906:
3904:
3901:
3899:
3898:Statutory law
3895:
3892:
3890:
3887:
3886:
3884:
3882:
3878:
3872:
3869:
3867:
3864:
3862:
3859:
3857:
3856:Transport law
3854:
3852:
3849:
3847:
3844:
3842:
3839:
3837:
3834:
3832:
3829:
3827:
3824:
3822:
3819:
3817:
3814:
3810:
3807:
3805:
3802:
3801:
3800:
3797:
3795:
3792:
3790:
3787:
3785:
3782:
3780:
3777:
3775:
3774:Legal fiction
3772:
3770:
3767:
3765:
3762:
3760:
3757:
3755:
3752:
3750:
3747:
3745:
3742:
3740:
3737:
3735:
3732:
3730:
3727:
3725:
3722:
3720:
3717:
3715:
3712:
3710:
3707:
3705:
3704:Financial law
3702:
3700:
3697:
3695:
3692:
3689:
3686:
3684:
3681:
3679:
3676:
3674:
3671:
3669:
3666:
3664:
3663:Corporate law
3661:
3659:
3656:
3654:
3651:
3649:
3646:
3644:
3641:
3639:
3636:
3634:
3631:
3629:
3626:
3624:
3621:
3619:
3616:
3614:
3611:
3609:
3606:
3605:
3603:
3599:
3593:
3590:
3588:
3587:Statutory law
3585:
3583:
3580:
3576:
3573:
3572:
3571:
3568:
3566:
3563:
3561:
3558:
3554:
3551:
3549:
3546:
3545:
3544:
3541:
3539:
3536:
3534:
3531:
3529:
3526:
3524:
3521:
3519:
3516:
3514:
3511:
3509:
3506:
3502:
3499:
3498:
3497:
3494:
3492:
3489:
3487:
3484:
3482:
3479:
3477:
3474:
3473:
3471:
3469:Core subjects
3467:
3463:
3456:
3451:
3449:
3444:
3442:
3437:
3436:
3433:
3427:
3424:
3423:
3417:
3414:
3413:
3408:
3403:
3395:
3390:
3387:
3383:
3380:
3377:
3375:
3372:
3369:
3365:
3362:
3358:
3355:
3351:
3348:
3344:
3342:
3338:
3335:
3332:
3329:
3325:
3322:
3318:
3315:
3312:
3311:
3307:
3298:
3292:
3276:
3272:
3265:
3258:
3255:
3250:
3244:
3228:
3224:
3217:
3210:
3207:
3202:
3198:
3194:
3187:
3184:
3179:
3172:
3169:
3164:
3160:
3153:
3146:
3143:
3138:
3136:9780199362134
3132:
3128:
3121:
3118:
3113:
3109:
3105:
3101:
3094:
3092:
3088:
3083:
3076:
3073:
3068:
3064:
3060:
3056:
3049:
3046:
3042:
3036:
3033:
3029:
3023:
3020:
3014:
3011:
3006:
2999:
2996:
2992:
2985:
2982:
2977:
2971:
2955:
2951:
2944:
2937:
2934:
2929:
2923:
2907:
2903:
2896:
2889:
2886:
2880:
2877:
2871:
2868:
2864:
2859:
2856:
2852:
2848:
2843:
2840:
2835:
2828:
2825:
2821:
2816:
2813:
2807:
2804:
2800:
2795:
2792:
2788:
2783:
2780:
2776:
2770:
2767:
2763:
2758:
2755:
2751:
2747:
2743:
2739:
2735:
2729:
2726:
2722:
2718:
2713:
2710:
2706:
2702:
2697:
2694:
2690:
2686:
2681:
2678:
2674:
2669:
2666:
2662:
2658:
2654:
2650:
2646:
2640:
2637:
2634:
2630:
2625:
2622:
2618:
2614:
2613:
2607:
2604:
2600:
2595:
2592:
2588:
2583:
2580:
2576:
2571:
2568:
2564:
2559:
2556:
2552:
2547:
2544:
2540:
2539:Evans v. U.S.
2535:
2532:
2528:
2523:
2520:
2516:
2511:
2508:
2504:
2500:
2498:9780314275554
2494:
2490:
2483:
2480:
2467:
2466:The Economist
2463:
2457:
2454:
2450:
2446:
2443:, (2004) 221
2442:
2438:
2433:
2430:
2426:
2422:
2419:, (1994) 179
2418:
2414:
2409:
2406:
2402:
2399:
2394:
2391:
2387:
2383:
2382:The Vera Cruz
2378:
2375:
2370:
2364:
2361:
2357:
2353:
2352:
2345:
2342:
2338:
2337:
2331:
2328:
2323:
2319:
2313:
2310:
2298:
2291:
2285:
2282:
2270:
2266:
2260:
2258:
2254:
2242:
2238:
2232:
2230:
2226:
2222:
2218:
2213:
2210:
2207:
2203:
2199:
2193:
2191:
2187:
2183:
2178:
2175:
2171:
2165:
2162:
2149:
2145:
2139:
2136:
2132:
2131:
2125:
2122:
2117:
2110:
2107:
2102:
2098:
2093:
2088:
2084:
2080:
2076:
2072:
2068:
2061:
2058:
2053:
2045:
2041:
2040:
2034:
2027:
2024:
2019:
2011:
2007:
2006:
2000:
1993:
1990:
1984:
1981:
1975:
1972:
1967:
1963:
1956:
1949:
1946:
1940:
1937:
1933:
1927:
1924:
1919:
1917:9780199564101
1913:
1909:
1902:
1899:
1895:
1889:
1886:
1880:
1877:
1874:
1870:
1864:
1861:
1857:
1853:
1848:
1845:
1841:
1838:
1833:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1816:
1813:
1809:
1805:
1799:
1796:
1792:
1786:
1783:
1776:
1772:
1769:
1767:
1764:
1762:
1759:
1757:
1754:
1751:
1748:
1747:
1743:
1741:
1737:
1733:
1730:
1728:
1725:
1723:
1720:
1718:
1715:
1713:
1710:
1708:
1705:
1704:
1700:
1698:
1694:
1692:
1686:
1683:
1680:
1678:
1674:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1655:
1653:
1649:
1647:
1646:mischief rule
1643:
1641:
1637:
1635:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1623:
1621:
1619:
1618:
1611:
1609:
1601:
1599:
1596:
1586:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1577:
1574:
1570:develop law (
1569:
1565:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1541:
1538:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1531:
1527:
1519:
1514:
1511:
1508:
1505:
1502:
1499:
1496:
1493:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1482:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1470:
1461:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1434:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1422:
1420:
1411:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1403:
1394:
1391:
1390:
1386:
1385:
1380:
1375:
1372:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1359:
1353:
1352:
1346:
1345:
1340:
1337:
1334:
1330:
1329:
1324:
1320:
1319:
1314:
1311:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1299:Evans v. U.S.
1296:
1292:
1288:
1286:
1283:
1280:
1276:
1275:
1270:
1267:
1264:
1260:
1259:
1254:
1251:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1240:
1234:
1233:The Vera Cruz
1231:Described in
1229:
1228:lex specialis
1224:
1221:
1218:
1215:
1212:
1209:
1205:
1202:
1199:
1195:
1190:
1187:
1184:
1181:
1177:
1172:
1169:
1166:
1163:
1160:
1157:
1154:
1151:
1148:
1143:
1140:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1127:Plain meaning
1126:
1125:
1124:
1122:
1114:
1106:
1103:February 2021
1097:
1093:
1090:This list is
1088:
1081:
1080:
1074:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1067:
1063:
1055:
1053:
1049:
1042:
1039:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1025:
1022:
1019:
1016:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1004:
1002:
999:
997:
993:
992:
983:
978:
974:
971:
968:
964:
961:
958:
954:
953:
948:
945:
942:
938:
934:
930:
926:
923:
920:
916:
912:
908:
904:
901:
898:
894:
891:
888:
884:
881:
878:
874:
870:
867:
864:
863:
857:
856:
852:rehearing of
851:
847:
844:
837:
833:
829:
825:
822:
821:
820:
817:
813:
809:
805:
801:
799:
794:
792:
784:
780:
776:
773:
769:
764:
763:
762:
760:
749:
746:
738:
728:
724:
718:
717:
712:This section
710:
706:
701:
700:
694:
690:United States
689:
687:
685:
681:
677:
676:United States
673:
669:
659:
656:
648:
638:
634:
628:
627:
622:This section
620:
616:
611:
610:
604:
602:
595:
593:
591:
587:
578:
576:
574:
570:
566:
562:
554:
553:
548:
545:
544:
538:
535:
534:
529:
526:
523:
520:
517:
514:
513:
508:
507:
502:
501:
500:
497:
495:
491:
487:
486:mischief rule
481:
479:
474:
466:
464:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
441:
437:
433:
429:
418:
413:
411:
406:
404:
399:
398:
396:
395:
390:
387:
385:
384:Legal process
382:
380:
379:Legal realism
377:
375:
372:
370:
367:
365:
362:
360:
357:
354:
350:
345:
342:
339:
335:
332:
330:
326:
322:
319:
318:
317:
316:
311:
306:
303:
301:
300:Mischief rule
298:
296:
293:
292:
291:
290:
285:
280:
277:
275:
272:
271:
270:
269:
264:
261:
257:
254:
246:
243:
228:
225:
217:
207:
203:
199:
193:
191:
184:
175:
174:
165:
162:
154:
143:
140:
136:
133:
129:
126:
122:
119:
115:
112: –
111:
107:
106:Find sources:
100:
96:
90:
89:
84:This article
82:
78:
73:
72:
67:
65:
58:
57:
52:
51:
46:
41:
32:
31:
19:
4647:
4640:
4626:
4612:
4385:Jurisdiction
4353:Legal remedy
4308:Adjudication
4208:Legal theory
4046:Ratification
4041:Promulgation
4012:Proclamation
3992:Codification
3925:Human rights
3913:Divine right
3903:Constitution
3871:Women in law
3789:Military law
3784:Marriage law
3779:Maritime law
3678:Election law
3618:Aviation law
3608:Abortion law
3560:Property law
3496:Criminal law
3406:
3378:
3333:
3327:
3291:cite journal
3279:. Retrieved
3274:
3270:
3257:
3243:cite journal
3231:. Retrieved
3226:
3222:
3209:
3200:
3196:
3186:
3178:B.U. L. Rev.
3177:
3171:
3162:
3158:
3145:
3126:
3120:
3103:
3099:
3081:
3075:
3058:
3054:
3048:
3040:
3035:
3027:
3022:
3013:
3004:
2998:
2984:
2970:cite journal
2958:. Retrieved
2953:
2949:
2936:
2922:cite journal
2910:. Retrieved
2905:
2901:
2888:
2879:
2870:
2862:
2858:
2850:
2846:
2842:
2833:
2827:
2819:
2815:
2806:
2798:
2794:
2786:
2782:
2774:
2769:
2761:
2757:
2733:
2728:
2720:
2716:
2712:
2704:
2700:
2696:
2688:
2684:
2680:
2672:
2668:
2644:
2639:
2628:
2624:
2611:
2606:
2598:
2594:
2586:
2582:
2574:
2570:
2562:
2558:
2550:
2546:
2538:
2534:
2526:
2522:
2514:
2510:
2502:
2488:
2482:
2470:. Retrieved
2465:
2456:
2451:(Australia).
2436:
2432:
2427:(Australia).
2412:
2408:
2401:143 U.S. 457
2397:
2393:
2384:, (1884) 10
2381:
2377:
2363:
2349:
2344:
2334:
2330:
2321:
2312:
2300:. Retrieved
2296:
2284:
2272:. Retrieved
2268:
2244:. Retrieved
2240:
2221:242 U.S. 470
2216:
2212:
2197:
2181:
2177:
2169:
2164:
2152:. Retrieved
2148:the original
2138:
2129:
2124:
2115:
2109:
2074:
2070:
2060:
2037:
2026:
2003:
1992:
1983:
1974:
1965:
1961:
1948:
1939:
1926:
1907:
1901:
1888:
1879:
1863:
1851:
1847:
1836:
1832:
1815:
1798:
1790:
1785:
1744:
1695:
1687:
1684:
1681:
1670:
1640:literal rule
1627:
1624:Philosophies
1615:
1612:
1605:
1595:contra legem
1592:interpreted
1590:
1578:
1567:
1563:
1560:
1546:
1523:
1509:
1503:
1497:
1491:
1486:
1477:
1473:
1465:
1423:
1418:
1415:
1401:
1399:
1383:
1370:
1363:
1342:
1332:
1326:
1322:
1316:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1290:
1278:
1272:
1257:
1249:
1244:
1232:
1219:
1210:
1200:
1193:
1185:
1179:
1175:
1167:
1158:
1146:
1135:
1118:
1100:
1059:
1050:
1046:
1040:
1034:
1030:
1027:Declarations
1026:
1020:
1014:
1008:
1000:
995:
990:
989:
987:
976:
966:
956:
950:
940:
936:
932:
928:
918:
914:
910:
906:
896:
886:
872:
860:
853:
849:
831:
827:
818:
814:
810:
806:
802:
797:
795:
790:
788:
771:
767:
756:
741:
732:
721:Please help
716:verification
713:
684:Constitution
666:
651:
642:
631:Please help
626:verification
623:
599:
589:
582:
572:
558:
550:
541:
531:
510:
504:
498:
490:literal rule
482:
470:
427:
426:
278:
253:
238:
220:
211:
187:
157:
148:
138:
131:
124:
117:
105:
93:Please help
88:verification
85:
61:
54:
48:
47:Please help
44:
4557:Legislature
4488:Bureaucracy
4285:Rule of man
4280:Rule of law
4255:Libertarian
4118:Chinese law
4019:Legislation
3969:Regulations
3957:Law reports
3935:Natural law
3831:Reparations
3826:Refugee law
3749:Jurimetrics
3690:(Media law)
3628:Banking law
3623:Amnesty law
3601:Disciplines
3538:Private law
3180:: 321, 327.
2653:pp. 237–239
2617:534 U.S. 84
2472:November 9,
2356:Pearson plc
1756:Rule of law
1673:purposivism
1634:golden rule
1555:ratio legis
1526:Montesquieu
1483:U.S. courts
1325:; see also
1321:; see also
494:golden rule
461:regulations
453:legislature
432:legislation
334:Originalism
325:Living tree
305:Golden rule
4665:Categories
4550:Law school
4430:Prosecutor
4368:Magistrate
4155:Jewish law
4113:Common law
4034:Rulemaking
4029:Regulation
3979:Law making
3918:Divine law
3894:Legal code
3841:Sports law
3764:Law of war
3714:Health law
3699:Family law
3683:Energy law
3633:Bankruptcy
3570:Punishment
3565:Public law
3281:October 5,
3233:October 5,
2960:October 5,
2912:October 5,
2717:Bond v. US
2701:Bond v. US
2685:Bond v. US
2449:High Court
2425:High Court
2354:, p. 215 (
2269:Justia Law
2241:Justia Law
2144:"Recitals"
2054:required.)
2033:"peculiar"
2020:required.)
1837:Shaw v DPP
1777:References
1740:Textualism
1677:textualism
1657:Textualism
1455:derogation
1373:deference)
1092:incomplete
1062:common law
735:March 2016
645:March 2016
575:statutes.
543:Factortame
533:Shaw v DPP
492:, and the
476:and given
445:common law
364:Textualism
151:March 2016
121:newspapers
50:improve it
4528:Judiciary
4523:Executive
4498:The bench
4435:Solicitor
4410:Barrister
4290:Sociology
4275:Pseudolaw
4215:Anarchist
4172:Roman law
4160:Parsi law
4145:Hindu law
4133:Canon law
4108:Civil law
4061:Concordat
3952:Precedent
3861:Trust law
3836:Space law
3673:Drugs law
3543:Procedure
3481:Civil law
3352:Jon May,
2302:March 11,
2274:April 14,
2246:April 14,
1462:Criticism
1360:Deference
1035:of Intent
1031:of Policy
770:specific
759:judiciary
680:Australia
573:interpret
449:judiciary
440:ambiguity
214:June 2024
202:talk page
56:talk page
4635:Category
4577:Tribunal
4562:Military
4405:Attorney
4375:Judgment
4235:Feminist
4150:Jain law
3947:Case law
3668:Cyberlaw
3575:Corporal
3553:Criminal
3523:Evidence
3513:Doctrine
3491:Contract
3357:Archived
3067:12908477
2740:(2008),
2320:(1999).
2101:28943724
1819:As with
1806:132, 2
1738:—
1734:—
1701:See also
1021:Findings
1015:Recitals
590:criteria
561:case law
506:mens rea
196:You may
4649:Outline
4586:History
4493:The bar
4467:Verdict
4415:Counsel
4395:Justice
4250:History
4073:Statute
3889:Charter
3851:Tax law
3799:Probate
3330:(1950).
3084:: 1148.
3043:§ 47:27
3030:§ 47:16
2386:App Cas
2206:1159604
2092:5598875
1568:further
1547:purpose
1371:Chevron
1123:names.
850:en banc
695:Meaning
668:Federal
473:England
467:History
455:and to
436:statute
135:scholar
4567:Police
4538:Agency
4420:Lawyer
4165:Sharia
4056:Treaty
4051:Repeal
3997:Decree
3908:Custom
3804:Estate
3754:Labour
3518:Equity
3404:about
3133:
3106:(70).
3065:
2748:
2742:p. 148
2659:
2619:(2001)
2495:
2403:(1892)
2358:2018).
2223:(1917)
2204:
2154:May 9,
2099:
2089:
1914:
1871:
1821:EU law
1056:Canons
672:Canada
488:, the
137:
130:
123:
116:
108:
4642:Index
4508:Court
4452:Trial
4358:Judge
4199:Yassa
4002:Edict
3548:Civil
3501:Crime
3267:(PDF)
3219:(PDF)
3203:: 59.
3155:(PDF)
2946:(PDF)
2898:(PDF)
2439:
2423:427,
2415:
2293:(PDF)
2048:
2014:
1999:"let"
1958:(PDF)
1551:Latin
1277:, or
1252:canon
1121:Latin
266:Forms
204:, or
142:JSTOR
128:books
4390:Jury
4338:Fiqh
4194:Xeer
3592:Tort
3508:Deed
3297:link
3283:2022
3249:link
3235:2022
3165:(1).
3131:ISBN
3063:PMID
2976:link
2962:2022
2928:link
2914:2022
2746:ISBN
2657:ISBN
2493:ISBN
2474:2015
2304:2022
2276:2023
2248:2023
2202:SSRN
2156:2011
2097:PMID
1968:(1).
1912:ISBN
1869:ISBN
1675:and
1650:The
1644:The
1638:The
1632:The
1564:make
1453:and
1315:See
1037:; or
994:(or
768:both
757:The
678:and
114:news
3462:Law
3163:122
3108:doi
3104:106
3039:2A
3026:2A
2954:122
2445:CLR
2421:CLR
2087:PMC
2079:doi
1966:122
1858:603
1842:220
1808:WLR
1752:573
1576:).
1381:in
1134:in
1098:.
1033:or
772:and
725:by
635:by
592:".
97:by
4667::
3896:/
3388:).
3293:}}
3289:{{
3275:70
3273:.
3269:.
3245:}}
3241:{{
3227:96
3225:.
3221:.
3201:11
3199:.
3195:.
3161:.
3157:.
3102:.
3090:^
3059:55
3057:.
2972:}}
2968:{{
2952:.
2948:.
2924:}}
2920:{{
2906:97
2904:.
2900:.
2744:.
2736:.
2655:.
2651:.
2647:.
2631:,
2615:,
2501:.
2464:.
2388:59
2295:.
2267:.
2256:^
2239:.
2228:^
2219:,
2189:^
2095:.
2085:.
2075:17
2073:.
2069:.
2036:.
2002:.
1964:.
1960:.
1856:AC
1854:1
1840:AC
1804:AC
1750:AC
1620:.
1553::
1305:;
1301:;
1293:;
1261:,
875:,
834:,
536:).
496:.
463:.
351:,
327:/
323:/
59:.
3454:e
3447:t
3440:v
3299:)
3285:.
3251:)
3237:.
3139:.
3114:.
3110::
3069:.
2993:.
2978:)
2964:.
2930:)
2916:.
2752:.
2663:.
2476:.
2371:.
2306:.
2278:.
2250:.
2158:.
2103:.
2081::
2046:.
2012:.
1920:.
1827:.
1457:.
1426:'
1335:.
1105:)
1101:(
1023:;
1017:;
840:'
785:.
748:)
742:(
737:)
733:(
719:.
658:)
652:(
647:)
643:(
629:.
546:.
515:.
416:e
409:t
402:v
355:)
347:(
340:)
336:(
245:)
239:(
227:)
221:(
216:)
212:(
194:.
164:)
158:(
153:)
149:(
139:·
132:·
125:·
118:·
91:.
66:)
62:(
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.