Statutory interpretation

884:: "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." 1127:, 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. 663:, 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 1671:"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." 573:

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

168: 4605: 4619: 1417:". 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". 1376:. 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." 694: 604: 66: 1073: 797:

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.

25: 1573:

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.

987:, 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". 1225:

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.

1410:, 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". 954:: "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." 1205:"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." 1041:

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."

1686:

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.

1163:

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

789:. 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. 1602:

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

1455:

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

1393:

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

1384:

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

1405:

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

464:

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

1677:

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

1463:

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

782:. 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. 590:

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.

1224:

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

1133:

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

1685:

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

1572:

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

1185:

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

1040:

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

796:

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

1426:

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

1162:

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

572:

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",

1550:

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

1195:

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

898:, 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." 800:

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

792:

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

1580:

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

472:

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

589:

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

1678:

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

924:(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. ( 902:, 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." 1353:

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.

815:: "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." 1134:

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

431:

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

801:

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.

766:

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

1180:

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,

528:

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:

819:, 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." 1057:. 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: 998:

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:

938:: "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." 894:: "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." 847:

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.'

1365:

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

1036:

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.

754:

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

874:: "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." 1599:, 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. 2872:

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).

804:

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.

2977:

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

2931: 1467:

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.

1385:

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.

920:(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. ( 1196:

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.

675:, 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 750:

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:

1576:

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.

1413:

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

1320:, 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: 990:

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.

964:: "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." 3309: 560:; 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 1371: 3345: 1668:

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.

977:

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

940: 1406:

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

1394:

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".

1254:(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 ..." 521: 1336:: "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 1144:

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.:

2883: 3204: 1517:(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 577:, author of texts on statutory interpretation, there are no such simple devices to elucidate complex statutes, "nstead there are a thousand and one interpretative 793:

ambiguities. Statutory interpretation is the process of resolving those ambiguities and deciding how a particular bill or law will apply in a particular case.

1153:

There is a presumption that when similar statutory provisions are found in comparable statutory schemes, interpreters should presumptively apply the same way.

935: 531: 3285: 3237: 2964: 2916: 2278: 1049:

Also known as canons of construction, canons give common sense guidance to courts in interpreting the meaning of statutes. Most canons emerge from the

1119:

When writing statutes, the legislature intends to use ordinary English words in their ordinary senses. The United States Supreme Court discussed the

403: 944:, 534 U.S. 438, 450 (2002); "nless otherwise defined, statutory words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning." 3252: 1617:

Over time, various methods of statutory construction have fallen in and out of favor. Some of the better-known rules of construction methods are:

1053:

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

1270:(Australia). However, legislation that is intended to be consistent with fundamental rights can be overridden by clear and unambiguous language. 178: 1316: 916:, 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. ( 3373:

Menahem Pasternak, Christophe Rico, Tax Interpretation, Planning, and Avoidance: Some Linguistic Analysis, 23 Akron Tax Journal, 33 (2008) (

1427:

changes in a vague or unclear way, and to ensure that voters are able to hold the appropriate legislators responsible for the modification.

1245: 488:

Statutes may be presumed to incorporate certain components, as Parliament is "presumed" to have intended their inclusion. For example:

130: 827:(1992). Indeed, "when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: 'judicial inquiry is complete. 711: 621: 102: 83: 38: 3342: 4586: 1596: 1108:

Textual canons are rules of thumb for understanding the words of the text. Some of the canons are still known by their traditional

2122:, 49 F. Supp. 846, 859 (W.D. La. 1943), where the issue involved interpretation of the words "board, lodging, or other facilities" 1812:, so in the UK an individual who is specifically targeted by a statute will normally have standing to bring a challenge by way of 1531:

Systematic interpretation: considering the context of provisions, if only by acknowledging in which chapter a provision is listed.

473:

Parliament", and the English courts developed three main rules (plus some minor ones) to assist them in the task. These were: the

109: 3329: 3317:

Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decisions and the Rules or Canons About How Statutes Are to Be Construed 3 Vand. L. Rev. 395

860:: "Every part of an act is presumed to be of some effect and is not to be treated as meaningless unless absolutely necessary." 3069:

Hart & Sacks, Henry M. & Albert M. (1994). "The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law".

2738: 2649: 770:

Uncertainties may be added to the statute in the course of enactment, such as the need for compromise or catering to special

396: 1715: 1710: 1262: 659:

jurisdictions may presume that either federal or local government authority prevails in the absence of a defined rule. In

1080: 116: 3414: 3042:

Calabresi, Guido (2003). "An Introduction to Legal Thought: Four Approaches to Law and to the Allocation of Body Parts".

850: 2132: 1674:"In contrast to purposivists, textualists focus on the words of a statute, emphasizing text over any unstated purpose." 552:

are in conflict, there is a presumption that legislation takes precedence insofar as there is any inconsistency. In the

2450: 1861: 1367: 1298:(2008). This is almost a junior version of the vagueness doctrine, and can be used for both criminal or civil penalty. 4012: 3570: 3469: 3123: 2485: 1904: 1332: 733: 643: 230: 212: 149: 98: 52: 1278:

In construing an ambiguous criminal statute, the court should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the defendant. See

4126: 3995: 389: 763:

unusual, e.g. "kangaroos are peculiar to Australia", and "it's very peculiar to see a kangaroo outside Australia".

4581: 3928: 3829: 3390: 2185:

Klimas, Tadas and Vaiciukaite, Jurate, "The Law of Recitals in European Community Legislation" (July 14, 2008).

427:. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and a straightforward meaning. But in many cases, there is some 4088: 3722: 956:

Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. of Maryland v. Director of Finance for Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

715: 625: 87: 2799:

1 All ER 142, 143 (HL). The judgment, however, was affirmed on the basis of the statutory language regardless.

2253: 1234:

Substantive canons instruct the court to favor interpretations that promote certain values or policy results.

1177:("the express mention of one thing excludes all others" or "the expression of one is the exclusion of others") 4674: 3441: 1460:

argued that every canon had a "counter-canon" that would lead to the opposite interpretation of the statute.

372: 362: 190: 44: 3374: 4248: 3727: 834: 671:, where it is presumed that if legislation is not enacted pursuant to a specific provision of the federal 4243: 913: 2692:, 134 S. Ct. 2077, 2088-2090 (2014) (quoting 18 U.S.C. 229(a)(1)(2014). Cited in Brannon, V. C. (2018). 4218: 3717: 1518: 317: 123: 4301: 2027: 1993: 1679: 951: 857: 557: 2324: 4669: 4096: 4078: 2726: 2708:, 134 S. Ct. 2077, 2093 (2014) (quoting 18 U.S.C. 229(a)(1)(2014). Cited in Brannon, V. C. (2018). 2676:, 134 S. Ct. 2077, 2085 (2014) (quoting 18 U.S.C. 229(a)(1)(2014). Cited in Brannon, V. C. (2018). 2637: 2433: 2409: 2374: 1844: 1828: 1792: 1738: 961: 891: 194: 4430: 1605: 1084: 186: 4659: 4471: 4258: 3747: 3732: 2437: 2413: 2117: 2032: 1998: 1759: 1749: 1705: 1528:

Historical interpretation: using the legislative history, to reveal the intent of the legislator.

871: 704: 614: 544:("of the same kind"), so that words are to be construed in sympathy with their immediate context. 262: 248: 76: 3356: 4664: 4526: 4511: 3404: 2056:"Using a moot to develop students' understanding of human cloning and statutory interpretation" 1932:

R v. Secretary of State for the Environment expert Spath Holme, (2001) 1 All ER 195, p. 216(HL)

1138:, where the term "chicken" was disputed as either a technical word or if plain meaning applied. 881: 460:

Statutory interpretation first became significant in common law systems, of which historically

347: 3205:"Textual Gerrymandering: The Eclipse of Republican Government in an Era of Statutory Populism" 2979: 2730: 2641: 2357: 2339: 4630: 4223: 3901: 3712: 3279: 3231: 3181: 2958: 2910: 2040: 2006: 1551:

different things to different people. The modern, common-law perception that courts actually

519:

A statute is presumed not to apply retrospectively (whereas the common law is "declaratory":

445: 1476:

The common textual canons of statutory construction employed in American jurisprudence are:

4351: 3697: 2429: 2405: 2103:

Brannon, Valerie (February 11, 2021). "Statutory Interpretation: Theories, Tools, Trends".

1421: 778:

Therefore, the court must try to determine how a statute should be enforced. This requires

313: 8: 4506: 3646: 3563: 3303:

CRS Report for Congress: "Statutory interpretation: General Principles and Recent Trends"

2254:"Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. Int'l Sales Corp., 190 F. Supp. 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1960)" 1306: 843: 341: 309: 2599: 510:

A statute is presumed not to remove an individual's liberty, vested rights, or property.

4321: 3980: 3834: 3819: 3797: 3541: 3521: 3474: 3464: 3140: 2225: 2080: 2055: 1943: 1796: 1695: 1649: 1640: 1339: 1120: 812: 357: 337: 283: 1244:

National statute must be construed so as not to conflict with international law. See

4306: 4228: 4066: 3809: 3804: 3757: 3682: 3676: 3516: 3434: 3119: 3051: 2734: 2645: 2481: 2190: 2085: 1900: 1857: 1700: 1622: 1054: 482: 293: 2021: 461: 4311: 4278: 3777: 3641: 3636: 3601: 3096: 2764:

Legislative History and Statutory Interpretation: The Relevance of English Practice

2075: 2067: 1754: 1724: 1456:

sense of justification to their otherwise arbitrary process. In a classic article,

656: 326: 4560: 4533: 4521: 4501: 4435: 4413: 4393: 4388: 4368: 4233: 4213: 4208: 4111: 4071: 3782: 3707: 3631: 3616: 3536: 3349: 3141:"A Decision Theory of Statutory Interpretation: Legislative History by the Rules" 2306: 1944:"A Decision Theory of Statutory Interpretation: Legislative History by the Rules" 1882: 1813: 1720: 1435:(Subsequent laws repeal those before enacted to the contrary, aka "Last in Time") 574: 540: 500: 466: 377: 332: 1595:

The interpretation of international treaties is governed by another treaty, the

1587:

in exceptional cases, if otherwise a patently unreasonable result would follow.

4637: 4445: 4363: 3952: 3918: 3869: 3854: 3626: 3531: 3511: 3501: 3325:

636 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1981) discusses most aspects of statutory construction.

1734: 1539: 1457: 1439: 1273: 771: 553: 440:

may apply rules of statutory interpretation both to legislation enacted by the

4653: 4491: 4450: 4336: 4316: 4288: 4238: 4203: 4177: 4172: 4165: 4116: 4056: 3896: 3886: 3844: 3767: 3762: 3692: 3651: 3575: 3362: 3302: 2621: 2605: 2389: 2209: 2136: 2071: 1634: 1464:"quantifier domain restriction canon" in the interpretation of legal rules. 1251: 1216: 865: 824: 664: 474: 367: 288: 1682:. Critiques of modern textualism on the United States Supreme Court abound. 1525:

Grammatical interpretation: using the literal meaning of the statutory text.

4623: 4373: 4341: 4296: 4034: 4029: 4000: 3913: 3891: 3859: 3792: 3772: 3666: 3606: 3596: 3548: 3506: 3484: 3427: 3055: 2089: 1628: 672: 516:

A statute is presumed not to empower a person to commit a criminal offence.

478: 2863:

John F Manning, 'The absurdity doctrine' (2003) 116 Harv L Rev 2387, 2390.

423:. Some amount of interpretation is often necessary when a case involves a 4545: 4486: 4476: 4273: 4268: 4106: 4007: 3923: 3882: 3849: 3814: 3737: 3661: 3611: 3526: 3375:

http://www.uakron.edu/law/lawreview/taxjournal/atj23/docs/Pasternak08.pdf

3100: 2842:, 491 U.S. 440, 470–71 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment)). 2344: 2279:"A Guide to Reading, Interpreting and Applying Statutes - Georgetown Law" 1744: 1661: 1514: 868:, 149 S.E. 541, 542 (1929). This is known as the rule against surplusage. 441: 420: 322: 3087:

Manning, John F. (2006). "What Divides Textualists from Purposivists?".

2836:

Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Inc. v. United States EPA

1260:

Statute does not violate fundamental societal values. See, for example,

4609: 4538: 4418: 4356: 4101: 4022: 4017: 3975: 3957: 3945: 3906: 3752: 3742: 3702: 3687: 3671: 3621: 3558: 3553: 1920: 1728: 1665: 1645: 1443: 1050: 718: in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. 628: in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. 449: 433: 352: 3082: 3080: 817:

Consumer Product Safety Commission et al. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. et al.

4516: 4481: 4423: 4398: 4263: 4160: 4148: 4133: 4121: 4049: 3967: 3940: 3824: 1921:

Vishnu Pratap Sugar Works (Private) Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Stamps

1401:

The legislature did not intend an absurd or manifestly unjust result.

1330:

National statute must be construed in favor of Native Americans. See

747: 668: 437: 428: 4604: 2194: 693: 603: 65: 4565: 4550: 4253: 4138: 3935: 3479: 3077: 1987: 1976:

GP Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 13th Edition, p.4

549: 494: 3335: 3330:

Canons of Construction and the Elusive Quest for Neutral Reasoning

2313:(7th ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing. p. 602. 4455: 4403: 4383: 4331: 4143: 4061: 3877: 3839: 3787: 3312:

is the authoritative text on the rules of statutory construction.

1897:

Understanding Common Law Legislation: Drafting and Interpretation

1546:), as it appears from legislative history, or other observations. 424: 2181: 2179: 1967:

Venkataswami Naidu v. Narasram Naraindas, AIR 1966 SC 361, p.363

4555: 4408: 4153: 4044: 4039: 3985: 3656: 3380:

Victoria F. Nourse, Misreading Law Misreading Democracy (2016).

3253:"Textualism 3.0: Statutory Interpretation After Justice Scalia" 2680:(CRS Report No. R45153). Congressional Research Service. 29–30. 2492:

Blurred signposts to criminality will not suffice to create it.

1809: 1555:

law is very different. In a German perception, courts can only

1438:

When two statutes conflict, the one enacted last prevails. See

660: 3118:(1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford university press. p. 104. 492:

Offences defined in criminal statutes are presumed to require

4496: 4440: 4346: 4187: 3990: 3489: 3370:, by Ruth Sullivan, 1997. Canadian examples and explanations. 2723:

Statutory Default Rules: How to Interpret Unclear Legislation

2634:

Statutory Default Rules: How to Interpret Unclear Legislation

2176: 1109: 854:, 529 U.S. 362, 404, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000)." 177:

deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a

2930:

Tobia, Kevin; Slocum, Brian G.; Nourse, Victoria F. (2022).

2712:(CRS Report No. R45153). Congressional Research Service. 30. 2696:(CRS Report No. R45153). Congressional Research Service. 30. 2426:

Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd v Australian Workers' Union

1841:

R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport (No 2)

1799:

470, 53 Cr App R 221, 1 All ER 347, HL, reversing 2 QB 418

1301:

Avoidance of abrogation of state sovereignty (United States)

4378: 4326: 4182: 3580: 3496: 3305:(public domain - can be copied into article with citations) 2980:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4369755

1603:

preparatory works, also known by the French designation of

507:

A statute is presumed to make no changes in the common law.

2443: 1856:

Rupert Cross, Statutory interpretation, 3rd Edition, p.34

1186:

canon is not favored by most scholars, lawyers, or judges.

3450: 1489:– "the express mention of one thing excludes all others" 3359:, 59 NYU Annual Survey Of American Law 231, 238 (2003). 3352:, The Champion Magazine (NACDL), January/February 2006. 3182:"The Role of Original Intent in Statutory Construction" 2809:

Texas Brine Co. LLC v. American Arbitration Association

808:

Below are various quotes on this topic from US courts:

593: 3419: 3336:"Llewellyn's Dueling Canons, One to Seven: A Critique" 1521:(1779–1861) the four main interpretation methods are: 3338:. New York Law School Law Review, Vol. 51, Fall 2006. 3071:

William N. Eskridge Jr. & Phillip P. Frickey Eds.

2710:

Statutory Interpretation: Theories, Tools, and Trends

2694:

Statutory Interpretation: Theories, Tools, and Trends

2678:

Statutory Interpretation: Theories, Tools, and Trends

1136:

Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. Int'l Sales Corp.

936:

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

469:, the decision would become binding on later courts. 3266:(3). Archived from the original on September 2, 2020 2897:(1). Archived from the original on November 30, 2018 972: 3165:Taylor, George H. (1995). "Structural Textualism". 2187:

ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law

2019: 1655: 1381:

Avoidance canon (canon of constitutional avoidance)

1211:("the general does not derogate from the specific") 419:is the process by which courts interpret and apply 90:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. 3203:Eskridge, William N.; Nourse, Victoria F. (2021). 2020: 1986: 906:, 117 N.M. 346, 353, 871 P.2d 1352, 1359 (1994); 538:It is presumed that a statute will be interpreted 3323:United States of America v. William C. Scrimgeour 2945:. Archived from the original on February 18, 2022 2929: 4651: 3357:"Dice Loading" Rules Of Statutory Interpretation 3284:: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown ( 3236:: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown ( 3068: 2996:(7th ed.). Thomas Reuters. p. § 47:17. 2963:: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown ( 2915:: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown ( 2542:, 431 U.S. 563 (1977) (Stewart, J., dissenting); 2161:, 6th Edition, Vol. 1A, §20.12 (West Group 2000) 1358:Deference to administrative interpretations (US 993: 513:A statute is presumed not to apply to the Crown. 1568:All of the above methods may seem reasonable: 785:Moreover, courts must also often view a case's 584: 3363:The Rules of Statutory Construction (Virginia) 3202: 2823:Reading Law: the interpretation of legal texts 2530:, 504 U.S. 255 (1992) (Thomas, J., dissenting) 2478:Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 2248: 2246: 1985: 1504:Common, technical, legal, or trade definition. 1171:, however most judges do not hold this belief. 3435: 3218:. Archived from the original on March 8, 2022 2576:Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs 2053: 1534:Teleological interpretation: considering the 1432:Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant 1317:Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs 1257:Interpretation in light of fundamental values 1032:, or of either house in multi-chamber bodies. 397: 175:The examples and perspective in this article 3006:2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47:23 2840:Public Citizen v. U.S. Department of Justice 2838:, 846 F.3d 492, 517 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting 2820: 2618:Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council 1560: 1373:Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council 3343:"Statutory Construction: Not For The Timid" 3179: 2932:"Statutory Interpretation from the Outside" 2475: 2243: 2054:Pattinson, Shaun D.; Kind, Vanessa (2017). 1883:Bennion on statutory interpretation: a code 1872:SALMOND: "Jurisprudence"11th Edition, p.152 1582: 1430: 1337: 53:Learn how and when to remove these messages 3442: 3428: 2119:Walling v. Peavy-Wilson Lumber Co., No 213 404: 390: 3041: 2476:Scalia, Antonin; Garne, Bryan A. (2012). 2173:2d, Vol. 73, "Statutes" (West Group 2001) 2079: 1590: 1286:(declining to apply the rule of lenity); 734:Learn how and when to remove this message 644:Learn how and when to remove this message 231:Learn how and when to remove this message 213:Learn how and when to remove this message 150:Learn how and when to remove this message 4587:History of the American legal profession 3186:Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 3113: 1597:Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 16:Judicial interpretation of statutory law 3086: 2821:Scalia, Antonin; Garner, Bryan (2012). 2102: 1899:. Oxford University Press. p. 12. 1894: 1508: 1483:– "of the same kinds, class, or nature" 1159:("of the same kinds, class, or nature") 4652: 3250: 3180:Easterbrook, Frank (January 1, 1988). 3164: 3138: 2881: 2305: 1941: 888:, 365 Ark. 465, 231 S.W.3d 619. (2006) 876:Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. 3423: 2220: 2218: 1495:– "a word is known by its associates" 1487:Expressio unius est exclusio alterius 1389:The avoidance canon was discussed in 1229: 1192:("a word is known by its associates") 1175:Expressio unius est exclusio alterius 968:, 757 N.E.2d 1037, 1039, 1040 (2001). 932:(People) (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1033, 1040 878:, 923 P.2d 783, 787-88 (Alaska 1996); 567: 498:(a guilty intention by the accused): 2994:2A Sutherland Statutory Construction 2451:"A man's jail term turns on a comma" 2387:Holy Trinity Church v. United States 2226:"Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893)" 2135:. The European Union. Archived from 2041:participating institution membership 2007:participating institution membership 1716:Legal interpretation in South Africa 1711:Indeterminacy debate in legal theory 1263:Holy Trinity Church v. United States 1067: 821:Connecticut National Bank v. Germain 716:adding citations to reliable sources 687: 626:adding citations to reliable sources 597: 594:Conflict of laws within a federation 161: 88:adding citations to reliable sources 59: 18: 2337:Finch, Emily and Fafinski, Stefan. 1501:– "upon the same matter or subject" 1408:Nothman v. London Borough of Barnet 948:, 23 F.3d 670, 677 (2nd Cir. 1994). 13: 3296: 2991: 2788:Nothman v London Borough of Barnet 2683: 2215: 1209:Generalia specialibus non derogant 958:, 343 Md. 567, 683 A.2d 512 (1996) 302:General theories of interpretation 14: 4686: 3571:Restitution and unjust enrichment 3384: 3310:Sutherland Statutory Construction 3030:Sutherland Statutory Construction 3017:Sutherland Statutory Construction 2751:Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co. 2601:Chickasaw Nation v. United States 2340:Law Express: English Legal System 2159:Sutherland Statutory Construction 1782:, Liverpool John Mores University 1780:Notes on the English Legal System 1333:Chickasaw Nation v. United States 1103: 973:Internal and external consistency 34:This article has multiple issues. 4618: 4617: 4603: 1656:Statutory interpretation methods 1071: 904:State ex rel. Helman v. Gallegos 692: 678: 602: 166: 64: 23: 4582:History of the legal profession 3244: 3196: 3173: 3158: 3132: 3107: 3062: 3035: 3022: 3009: 3000: 2985: 2971: 2923: 2875: 2866: 2857: 2845: 2829: 2825:. Thomson Reuters. p. 237. 2814: 2802: 2793: 2781: 2769: 2756: 2744: 2715: 2699: 2667: 2655: 2626: 2611: 2593: 2581: 2569: 2557: 2545: 2533: 2521: 2509: 2497: 2469: 2419: 2395: 2380: 2364: 2350: 2331: 2317: 2307:Garner, Bryan A.. Ed. In Chief. 2299: 2271: 2199: 2164: 2151: 2125: 2111: 2096: 2047: 2013: 1979: 1970: 1961: 1935: 1926: 1923:, U.P., AIR 1968 SC 102, p. 104 1913: 1612: 928:(2002) 29 Cal.4th 105, 112 .)" 910:, 2010-NMSC-041, August 9, 2010 703:needs additional citations for 613:needs additional citations for 276:General rules of interpretation 75:needs additional citations for 42:or discuss these issues on the 3212:New York University Law Review 2107:(published April 5, 2018): 25. 2105:Congressional Research Service 1888: 1875: 1866: 1850: 1834: 1819: 1802: 1785: 1772: 1471: 1327:'Indian' canon (United States) 448:such as administrative agency 1: 2762:William S Jordan III (1994), 2662:United States v. Jin Fuey Moy 1765: 1150:("part of the same material") 994:Statements of the legislature 363:Common good constitutionalism 263:Constitutional interpretation 3251:Nourse, Victoria F. (2019). 3139:Nourse, Victoria F. (2012). 3114:Katzmann, Robert A. (2014). 2882:Nourse, Victoria F. (2018). 2436:309 (2 September 2004), 1942:Nourse, Victoria F. (2012). 1760:UK Interpretation Act (1850) 1755:Sui generis § Statutory 1450: 1348: 1247:Murray v. The Charming Betsy 946:United States v. Piervinanzi 862:Red Ash Coal Corp. v. Absher 835:9th Circuit Court of Appeals 585:Intention of the legislature 7: 3415:Statutory Construction Blog 2811:, 955 F.3d 482, 486 (2020). 2664:, 241 U.S. 394, 401 (1916). 1895:Bennion, F (May 28, 2009). 1885:, accessed 25 November 2022 1689: 1368:United States Supreme Court 941:Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co. 914:California Court of Appeals 556:this principle is known as 189:, discuss the issue on the 10: 4691: 4249:International legal theory 3728:International slavery laws 3723:International human rights 3718:International criminal law 2206:Caminetti v. United States 1660:Within the United States, 1519:Friedrich Carl von Savigny 1214: 1202:("rendering each to each") 1125:Caminetti v. United States 1018:, sometimes suffixed with 683: 455: 99:"Statutory interpretation" 4597: 4574: 4464: 4302:Administration of justice 4287: 4196: 4087: 3966: 3868: 3589: 3457: 3405:Resources in your library 2854:, 282 U.S. 55, 60 (1930). 2060:Medical Law International 2028:Oxford English Dictionary 1994:Oxford English Dictionary 1200:Reddendo singula singulis 1044: 952:Maryland Court of Appeals 858:Supreme Court of Virginia 558:parliamentary sovereignty 4079:Basic structure doctrine 3929:Natural and legal rights 3810:Public international law 3396:Statutory interpretation 3368:Statutory Interpretation 3328:Brudney & Ditslear, 2727:Harvard University Press 2638:Harvard University Press 2504:McNally v. United States 2328:, 984 S.W.2d 695 (1998). 2072:10.1177/0968533217726350 1919:Supreme Court of India, 1280:McNally v. United States 1055:legislate from the bench 962:Indiana Court of Appeals 930:Alford v. Superior Court 892:New Mexico Supreme Court 467:reasons for the decision 417:Statutory interpretation 268:Statutory interpretation 4259:Principle of typicality 3733:International trade law 3449: 3355:Corrigan & Thomas, 3089:SSRN Electronic Journal 2033:Oxford University Press 1999:Oxford University Press 1750:Statutory term analysis 1706:Judicial interpretation 1513:The French philosopher 1296:United States v. Santos 1141:Rule against surplusage 872:Supreme Court of Alaska 249:Judicial interpretation 3348:June 29, 2011, at the 2790:1 All E.R. 1243, 1246. 2753:, 490 U.S. 504 (1989). 2632:Einer Elhauge (2008). 2590:, 380 U.S. 479 (1965). 2358:"US Legal definitions" 2311:Black's Law Dictionary 2286:www.law.georgetown.edu 2171:American Jurisprudence 1591:International treaties 1583: 1561: 1543: 1431: 1338: 882:Arkansas Supreme Court 837:: In the dissent from 780:statutory construction 548:Where legislation and 348:Strict constructionism 4254:Principle of legality 4013:Delegated legislation 3713:Intellectual property 2518:, 524 U.S. 125 (1998) 2506:, 483 U.S. 350 (1987) 2430:[2004] HCA 40 2406:[1994] HCA 15 1778:Trevor Lyons (2016), 1680:legislative supremacy 1648:vs. consideration of 1606:travaux préparatoires 1391:Bond v. United States 825:112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 446:delegated legislation 4675:Legal interpretation 4472:Barristers' chambers 4414:Legal representation 4352:Justice of the peace 3698:Financial regulation 3101:10.2139/ssrn.2849247 2778:3 QBD 693, 707 (CA). 2776:R v Hertford College 2588:Dombrowski v Pfister 1881:Stanford Libraries, 1509:European perceptions 1422:Clear statement rule 1322:Dombrowski v Pfister 1252:6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64 1085:adding missing items 831:" 503 U.S. 249, 254. 712:improve this article 622:improve this article 195:create a new article 187:improve this article 84:improve this article 4507:Election commission 4219:Expressive function 3748:Landlord–tenant law 3647:Consumer protection 3334:Sinclair, Michael, 3044:Stanford Law Review 2939:Columbia Law Review 2852:Crooks v. Harrelson 2622:467 U.S. 837 (1984) 2578:538 U.S. 721 (2003) 2566:546 U.S. 243 (2006) 2554:501 U.S. 452 (1991) 2552:Gregory v. Ashcroft 2540:Scarborough v. U.S. 2325:State Farm v. Brown 2031:(Online ed.). 1997:(Online ed.). 1307:Gregory v. Ashcroft 1292:Scarborough v. U.S. 918:People v. Jefferson 844:Silveira v. Lockyer 436:jurisdictions, the 342:legislative history 310:Living Constitution 4465:Legal institutions 4332:Lawsuit/Litigation 4322:Dispute resolution 4127:Catholic canon law 3835:State of emergency 3798:Will and testament 3522:Law of obligations 3475:Constitutional law 3465:Administrative law 3260:Alabama Law Review 2992:Singer, Norman J. 2564:Gonzales v. Oregon 2516:Muscarello v. U.S. 2457:. November 4, 2015 2157:Norman J. Singer, 1696:Interpretation Act 1650:legislative intent 1641:purposive approach 1398:Avoiding absurdity 1340:contra proferentem 1312:Gonzales v. Oregon 1284:Muscarello v. U.S. 1230:Substantive canons 1121:plain meaning rule 1083:; you can help by 1064:Substantive canons 922:People v. Lawrence 908:New Mexico v. Juan 886:Farrell v. Farrell 851:Williams v. Taylor 813:U.S. Supreme Court 568:General principles 358:Purposive approach 338:legislative intent 284:Plain meaning rule 4647: 4646: 4307:Constitutionalism 4229:Law and economics 4067:Act of parliament 3805:Product liability 3758:Legal archaeology 3683:Environmental law 3677:Entertainment law 3517:International law 3391:Library resources 3308:The multi-volume 2766:, 29 USF L Rev 1. 2739:978-0-674-02460-1 2650:978-0-674-02460-1 2189:, Vol. 15, 2008. 2139:on March 17, 2011 2039:(Subscription or 2005:(Subscription or 1791:Sweet v Parsley 1701:Judicial activism 1562:Rechtsfortbildung 1493:Noscitur a sociis 1190:Noscitur a sociis 1169:Noscitur a sociis 1130:Technical meaning 1101: 1100: 1030:Sense of Congress 787:statutory context 744: 743: 736: 654: 653: 646: 414: 413: 318:Living instrument 241: 240: 233: 223: 222: 215: 197:, as appropriate. 160: 159: 152: 134: 57: 4682: 4622: 4621: 4620: 4608: 4607: 4431:Question of fact 4312:Criminal justice 3642:Construction law 3637:Conflict of laws 3602:Agricultural law 3444: 3437: 3430: 3421: 3420: 3315:Karl Llewellyn, 3290: 3289: 3283: 3275: 3273: 3271: 3257: 3248: 3242: 3241: 3235: 3227: 3225: 3223: 3209: 3200: 3194: 3193: 3177: 3171: 3170: 3162: 3156: 3155: 3148:Yale Law Journal 3145: 3136: 3130: 3129: 3116:Judging statutes 3111: 3105: 3104: 3084: 3075: 3074: 3066: 3060: 3059: 3050:(6): 2113–2151. 3039: 3033: 3026: 3020: 3013: 3007: 3004: 2998: 2997: 2989: 2983: 2975: 2969: 2968: 2962: 2954: 2952: 2950: 2936: 2927: 2921: 2920: 2914: 2906: 2904: 2902: 2891:Texas Law Review 2888: 2884:"The Canon Wars" 2879: 2873: 2870: 2864: 2861: 2855: 2849: 2843: 2833: 2827: 2826: 2818: 2812: 2806: 2800: 2797: 2791: 2785: 2779: 2773: 2767: 2760: 2754: 2748: 2742: 2719: 2713: 2703: 2697: 2687: 2681: 2671: 2665: 2659: 2653: 2630: 2624: 2615: 2609: 2597: 2591: 2585: 2579: 2573: 2567: 2561: 2555: 2549: 2543: 2537: 2531: 2525: 2519: 2513: 2507: 2501: 2495: 2494: 2480:. Thomson/West. 2473: 2467: 2466: 2464: 2462: 2447: 2441: 2423: 2417: 2402:Coco v The Queen 2399: 2393: 2384: 2378: 2368: 2362: 2361: 2354: 2348: 2335: 2329: 2321: 2315: 2314: 2303: 2297: 2296: 2294: 2292: 2283: 2275: 2269: 2268: 2266: 2264: 2250: 2241: 2240: 2238: 2236: 2222: 2213: 2203: 2197: 2183: 2174: 2168: 2162: 2155: 2149: 2148: 2146: 2144: 2129: 2123: 2115: 2109: 2108: 2100: 2094: 2093: 2083: 2051: 2045: 2044: 2036: 2024: 2017: 2011: 2010: 2002: 1990: 1983: 1977: 1974: 1968: 1965: 1959: 1958: 1951:Yale Law Journal 1948: 1939: 1933: 1930: 1924: 1917: 1911: 1910: 1892: 1886: 1879: 1873: 1870: 1864: 1854: 1848: 1838: 1832: 1823: 1817: 1806: 1800: 1789: 1783: 1776: 1725:Original meaning 1586: 1564: 1538:of the statute ( 1434: 1416: 1344:in contract law. 1343: 1268:Coco v The Queen 1096: 1093: 1075: 1074: 1068: 926:People v. Acosta 866:153 Va. 332, 335 830: 739: 732: 728: 725: 719: 696: 688: 649: 642: 638: 635: 629: 606: 598: 406: 399: 392: 327:original meaning 245: 244: 236: 229: 218: 211: 207: 204: 198: 170: 169: 162: 155: 148: 144: 141: 135: 133: 92: 68: 60: 49: 27: 26: 19: 4690: 4689: 4685: 4684: 4683: 4681: 4680: 4679: 4670:Legal reasoning 4650: 4649: 4648: 4643: 4616: 4602: 4593: 4570: 4561:Political party 4534:Legal education 4522:Law enforcement 4502:Court of equity 4460: 4436:Question of law 4389:Practice of law 4369:Judicial review 4283: 4234:Legal formalism 4214:Comparative law 4209:Contract theory 4192: 4112:Legal pluralism 4083: 4072:Act of Congress 3996:Executive order 3962: 3864: 3783:Nationality law 3708:Immigration law 3632:Competition law 3585: 3453: 3448: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3399: 3398: 3394: 3387: 3350:Wayback Machine 3299: 3297:Further reading 3294: 3293: 3277: 3276: 3269: 3267: 3255: 3249: 3245: 3229: 3228: 3221: 3219: 3207: 3201: 3197: 3178: 3174: 3163: 3159: 3143: 3137: 3133: 3126: 3112: 3108: 3085: 3078: 3067: 3063: 3040: 3036: 3027: 3023: 3014: 3010: 3005: 3001: 2990: 2986: 2976: 2972: 2956: 2955: 2948: 2946: 2934: 2928: 2924: 2908: 2907: 2900: 2898: 2886: 2880: 2876: 2871: 2867: 2862: 2858: 2850: 2846: 2834: 2830: 2819: 2815: 2807: 2803: 2798: 2794: 2786: 2782: 2774: 2770: 2761: 2757: 2749: 2745: 2721:Einer Elhauge. 2720: 2716: 2704: 2700: 2688: 2684: 2672: 2668: 2660: 2656: 2631: 2627: 2616: 2612: 2598: 2594: 2586: 2582: 2574: 2570: 2562: 2558: 2550: 2546: 2538: 2534: 2526: 2522: 2514: 2510: 2502: 2498: 2488: 2474: 2470: 2460: 2458: 2449: 2448: 2444: 2424: 2420: 2400: 2396: 2385: 2381: 2369: 2365: 2356: 2355: 2351: 2336: 2332: 2322: 2318: 2304: 2300: 2290: 2288: 2281: 2277: 2276: 2272: 2262: 2260: 2252: 2251: 2244: 2234: 2232: 2224: 2223: 2216: 2204: 2200: 2184: 2177: 2169: 2165: 2156: 2152: 2142: 2140: 2131: 2130: 2126: 2116: 2112: 2101: 2097: 2052: 2048: 2038: 2018: 2014: 2004: 1984: 1980: 1975: 1971: 1966: 1962: 1946: 1940: 1936: 1931: 1927: 1918: 1914: 1907: 1893: 1889: 1880: 1876: 1871: 1867: 1855: 1851: 1839: 1835: 1824: 1820: 1814:judicial review 1807: 1803: 1790: 1786: 1777: 1773: 1768: 1721:Original intent 1692: 1658: 1615: 1593: 1511: 1499:In pari materia 1481:Ejusdem generis 1474: 1453: 1414: 1351: 1232: 1219: 1183:Expressio unius 1167:as a subset of 1165:Ejusdem generis 1157:Ejusdem generis 1148:In Pari Materia 1106: 1097: 1091: 1088: 1072: 1047: 996: 985:eiusdem generis 980:ejusdem generis 975: 966:Ashley v. State 900:State v. Rowell 828: 772:interest groups 767:fertilisation?) 740: 729: 723: 720: 709: 697: 686: 681: 650: 639: 633: 630: 619: 607: 596: 587: 575:Francis Bennion 570: 541:ejusdem generis 501:Sweet v Parsley 458: 410: 378:Legal formalism 335: 333:Original intent 237: 226: 225: 224: 219: 208: 202: 199: 184: 171: 167: 156: 145: 139: 136: 93: 91: 81: 69: 28: 24: 17: 12: 11: 5: 4688: 4678: 4677: 4672: 4667: 4662: 4660:Sources of law 4645: 4644: 4642: 4641: 4634: 4627: 4613: 4610:Law portal 4598: 4595: 4594: 4592: 4591: 4590: 4589: 4578: 4576: 4572: 4571: 4569: 4568: 4563: 4558: 4553: 4548: 4543: 4542: 4541: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4519: 4514: 4509: 4504: 4499: 4494: 4489: 4484: 4479: 4474: 4468: 4466: 4462: 4461: 4459: 4458: 4453: 4448: 4446:Trial advocacy 4443: 4438: 4433: 4428: 4427: 4426: 4421: 4416: 4411: 4406: 4401: 4396: 4386: 4381: 4376: 4371: 4366: 4361: 4360: 4359: 4354: 4344: 4339: 4334: 4329: 4324: 4319: 4314: 4309: 4304: 4299: 4293: 4291: 4285: 4284: 4282: 4281: 4276: 4271: 4266: 4261: 4256: 4251: 4246: 4241: 4236: 4231: 4226: 4221: 4216: 4211: 4206: 4200: 4198: 4194: 4193: 4191: 4190: 4185: 4180: 4175: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4151: 4146: 4141: 4136: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4114: 4109: 4104: 4099: 4093: 4091: 4085: 4084: 4082: 4081: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4069: 4064: 4054: 4053: 4052: 4042: 4037: 4032: 4027: 4026: 4025: 4020: 4015: 4005: 4004: 4003: 3998: 3993: 3983: 3978: 3976:Ballot measure 3972: 3970: 3964: 3963: 3961: 3960: 3955: 3953:Legal treatise 3950: 3949: 3948: 3943: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3921: 3919:Letters patent 3916: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3899: 3894: 3889: 3880: 3874: 3872: 3870:Sources of law 3866: 3865: 3863: 3862: 3857: 3855:Unenforced law 3852: 3847: 3842: 3837: 3832: 3827: 3822: 3817: 3812: 3807: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3795: 3785: 3780: 3775: 3770: 3765: 3760: 3755: 3750: 3745: 3740: 3735: 3730: 3725: 3720: 3715: 3710: 3705: 3700: 3695: 3690: 3685: 3680: 3674: 3669: 3664: 3659: 3654: 3649: 3644: 3639: 3634: 3629: 3627:Commercial law 3624: 3619: 3614: 3609: 3604: 3599: 3593: 3591: 3587: 3586: 3584: 3583: 3578: 3573: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3556: 3551: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3539: 3529: 3524: 3519: 3514: 3509: 3504: 3499: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3482: 3477: 3472: 3467: 3461: 3459: 3455: 3454: 3447: 3446: 3439: 3432: 3424: 3418: 3417: 3408: 3407: 3401: 3400: 3389: 3388: 3386: 3385:External links 3383: 3382: 3381: 3378: 3371: 3365: 3360: 3353: 3339: 3332: 3326: 3320: 3313: 3306: 3298: 3295: 3292: 3291: 3243: 3195: 3172: 3157: 3131: 3124: 3106: 3076: 3061: 3034: 3021: 3008: 2999: 2984: 2970: 2922: 2874: 2865: 2856: 2844: 2828: 2813: 2801: 2792: 2780: 2768: 2755: 2743: 2714: 2698: 2682: 2666: 2654: 2625: 2610: 2592: 2580: 2568: 2556: 2544: 2532: 2520: 2508: 2496: 2486: 2468: 2442: 2418: 2394: 2379: 2363: 2349: 2330: 2316: 2298: 2270: 2242: 2214: 2198: 2175: 2163: 2150: 2124: 2110: 2095: 2066:(3): 111–133. 2046: 2012: 1978: 1969: 1960: 1934: 1925: 1912: 1905: 1887: 1874: 1865: 1862:978-0406049711 1849: 1833: 1818: 1801: 1784: 1770: 1769: 1767: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1757: 1752: 1747: 1742: 1735:Pepper v. Hart 1731: 1718: 1713: 1708: 1703: 1698: 1691: 1688: 1657: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1643: 1637: 1631: 1625: 1614: 1611: 1592: 1589: 1578: 1577: 1574: 1548: 1547: 1532: 1529: 1526: 1510: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1502: 1496: 1490: 1484: 1473: 1470: 1458:Karl Llewellyn 1452: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1440:implied repeal 1436: 1428: 1424: 1403: 1402: 1399: 1387: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1377: 1363: 1350: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1328: 1325: 1302: 1299: 1276: 1274:Rule of lenity 1271: 1258: 1255: 1242: 1239:Charming Betsy 1231: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1215:Main article: 1212: 1206: 1203: 1197: 1193: 1187: 1178: 1172: 1160: 1154: 1151: 1145: 1142: 1139: 1131: 1128: 1117: 1105: 1104:Textual canons 1102: 1099: 1098: 1078: 1076: 1066: 1065: 1062: 1061:Textual canons 1046: 1043: 1034: 1033: 1027: 1013: 1007: 995: 992: 974: 971: 970: 969: 959: 949: 933: 911: 896:State v. Ogden 889: 879: 869: 855: 832: 776: 775: 768: 764: 742: 741: 700: 698: 691: 685: 682: 680: 677: 652: 651: 610: 608: 601: 595: 592: 586: 583: 569: 566: 554:United Kingdom 546: 545: 536: 526: 517: 514: 511: 508: 505: 457: 454: 412: 411: 409: 408: 401: 394: 386: 383: 382: 381: 380: 375: 370: 365: 360: 355: 350: 345: 330: 320: 304: 303: 299: 298: 297: 296: 291: 286: 278: 277: 273: 272: 271: 270: 265: 257: 256: 252: 251: 239: 238: 221: 220: 181:of the subject 179:worldwide view 174: 172: 165: 158: 157: 72: 70: 63: 58: 32: 31: 29: 22: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4687: 4676: 4673: 4671: 4668: 4666: 4665:Statutory law 4663: 4661: 4658: 4657: 4655: 4640: 4639: 4635: 4633: 4632: 4628: 4626: 4625: 4614: 4612: 4611: 4606: 4600: 4599: 4596: 4588: 4585: 4584: 4583: 4580: 4579: 4577: 4573: 4567: 4564: 4562: 4559: 4557: 4554: 4552: 4549: 4547: 4544: 4540: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4532: 4528: 4525: 4524: 4523: 4520: 4518: 4515: 4513: 4510: 4508: 4505: 4503: 4500: 4498: 4495: 4493: 4492:Civil society 4490: 4488: 4485: 4483: 4480: 4478: 4475: 4473: 4470: 4469: 4467: 4463: 4457: 4454: 4452: 4451:Trier of fact 4449: 4447: 4444: 4442: 4439: 4437: 4434: 4432: 4429: 4425: 4422: 4420: 4417: 4415: 4412: 4410: 4407: 4405: 4402: 4400: 4397: 4395: 4392: 4391: 4390: 4387: 4385: 4382: 4380: 4377: 4375: 4372: 4370: 4367: 4365: 4362: 4358: 4355: 4353: 4350: 4349: 4348: 4345: 4343: 4340: 4338: 4337:Legal opinion 4335: 4333: 4330: 4328: 4325: 4323: 4320: 4318: 4317:Court-martial 4315: 4313: 4310: 4308: 4305: 4303: 4300: 4298: 4295: 4294: 4292: 4290: 4289:Jurisprudence 4286: 4280: 4277: 4275: 4272: 4270: 4267: 4265: 4262: 4260: 4257: 4255: 4252: 4250: 4247: 4245: 4242: 4240: 4237: 4235: 4232: 4230: 4227: 4225: 4222: 4220: 4217: 4215: 4212: 4210: 4207: 4205: 4202: 4201: 4199: 4195: 4189: 4186: 4184: 4181: 4179: 4178:Statutory law 4176: 4174: 4173:Socialist law 4171: 4167: 4166:Byzantine law 4164: 4163: 4162: 4159: 4155: 4152: 4150: 4147: 4145: 4142: 4140: 4137: 4135: 4132: 4128: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4117:Religious law 4115: 4113: 4110: 4108: 4105: 4103: 4100: 4098: 4095: 4094: 4092: 4090: 4089:Legal systems 4086: 4080: 4077: 4073: 4070: 4068: 4065: 4063: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4057:Statutory law 4055: 4051: 4048: 4047: 4046: 4043: 4041: 4038: 4036: 4033: 4031: 4028: 4024: 4021: 4019: 4016: 4014: 4011: 4010: 4009: 4006: 4002: 3999: 3997: 3994: 3992: 3989: 3988: 3987: 3984: 3982: 3979: 3977: 3974: 3973: 3971: 3969: 3965: 3959: 3956: 3954: 3951: 3947: 3944: 3942: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3934: 3930: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3922: 3920: 3917: 3915: 3912: 3908: 3905: 3904: 3903: 3900: 3898: 3895: 3893: 3890: 3888: 3887:Statutory law 3884: 3881: 3879: 3876: 3875: 3873: 3871: 3867: 3861: 3858: 3856: 3853: 3851: 3848: 3846: 3845:Transport law 3843: 3841: 3838: 3836: 3833: 3831: 3828: 3826: 3823: 3821: 3818: 3816: 3813: 3811: 3808: 3806: 3803: 3799: 3796: 3794: 3791: 3790: 3789: 3786: 3784: 3781: 3779: 3776: 3774: 3771: 3769: 3766: 3764: 3763:Legal fiction 3761: 3759: 3756: 3754: 3751: 3749: 3746: 3744: 3741: 3739: 3736: 3734: 3731: 3729: 3726: 3724: 3721: 3719: 3716: 3714: 3711: 3709: 3706: 3704: 3701: 3699: 3696: 3694: 3693:Financial law 3691: 3689: 3686: 3684: 3681: 3678: 3675: 3673: 3670: 3668: 3665: 3663: 3660: 3658: 3655: 3653: 3652:Corporate law 3650: 3648: 3645: 3643: 3640: 3638: 3635: 3633: 3630: 3628: 3625: 3623: 3620: 3618: 3615: 3613: 3610: 3608: 3605: 3603: 3600: 3598: 3595: 3594: 3592: 3588: 3582: 3579: 3577: 3576:Statutory law 3574: 3572: 3569: 3565: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3557: 3555: 3552: 3550: 3547: 3543: 3540: 3538: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3530: 3528: 3525: 3523: 3520: 3518: 3515: 3513: 3510: 3508: 3505: 3503: 3500: 3498: 3495: 3491: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3483: 3481: 3478: 3476: 3473: 3471: 3468: 3466: 3463: 3462: 3460: 3458:Core subjects 3456: 3452: 3445: 3440: 3438: 3433: 3431: 3426: 3425: 3422: 3416: 3413: 3412: 3406: 3403: 3402: 3397: 3392: 3379: 3376: 3372: 3369: 3366: 3364: 3361: 3358: 3354: 3351: 3347: 3344: 3340: 3337: 3333: 3331: 3327: 3324: 3321: 3318: 3314: 3311: 3307: 3304: 3301: 3300: 3287: 3281: 3265: 3261: 3254: 3247: 3239: 3233: 3217: 3213: 3206: 3199: 3191: 3187: 3183: 3176: 3168: 3161: 3153: 3149: 3142: 3135: 3127: 3125:9780199362134 3121: 3117: 3110: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3083: 3081: 3072: 3065: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3038: 3031: 3025: 3018: 3012: 3003: 2995: 2988: 2981: 2974: 2966: 2960: 2944: 2940: 2933: 2926: 2918: 2912: 2896: 2892: 2885: 2878: 2869: 2860: 2853: 2848: 2841: 2837: 2832: 2824: 2817: 2810: 2805: 2796: 2789: 2784: 2777: 2772: 2765: 2759: 2752: 2747: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2718: 2711: 2707: 2702: 2695: 2691: 2686: 2679: 2675: 2670: 2663: 2658: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2629: 2623: 2619: 2614: 2607: 2603: 2602: 2596: 2589: 2584: 2577: 2572: 2565: 2560: 2553: 2548: 2541: 2536: 2529: 2528:Evans v. U.S. 2524: 2517: 2512: 2505: 2500: 2493: 2489: 2487:9780314275554 2483: 2479: 2472: 2456: 2455:The Economist 2452: 2446: 2439: 2435: 2432:, (2004) 221 2431: 2427: 2422: 2415: 2411: 2408:, (1994) 179 2407: 2403: 2398: 2391: 2388: 2383: 2376: 2372: 2371:The Vera Cruz 2367: 2359: 2353: 2346: 2342: 2341: 2334: 2327: 2326: 2320: 2312: 2308: 2302: 2287: 2280: 2274: 2259: 2255: 2249: 2247: 2231: 2227: 2221: 2219: 2211: 2207: 2202: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2182: 2180: 2172: 2167: 2160: 2154: 2138: 2134: 2128: 2121: 2120: 2114: 2106: 2099: 2091: 2087: 2082: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2050: 2042: 2034: 2030: 2029: 2023: 2016: 2008: 2000: 1996: 1995: 1989: 1982: 1973: 1964: 1956: 1952: 1945: 1938: 1929: 1922: 1916: 1908: 1906:9780199564101 1902: 1898: 1891: 1884: 1878: 1869: 1863: 1859: 1853: 1846: 1842: 1837: 1830: 1827: 1822: 1815: 1811: 1805: 1798: 1794: 1788: 1781: 1775: 1771: 1761: 1758: 1756: 1753: 1751: 1748: 1746: 1743: 1740: 1737: 1736: 1732: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1719: 1717: 1714: 1712: 1709: 1707: 1704: 1702: 1699: 1697: 1694: 1693: 1687: 1683: 1681: 1675: 1672: 1669: 1667: 1663: 1651: 1647: 1644: 1642: 1638: 1636: 1635:mischief rule 1632: 1630: 1626: 1624: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1610: 1608: 1607: 1600: 1598: 1588: 1585: 1575: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1566: 1563: 1559:develop law ( 1558: 1554: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1530: 1527: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1520: 1516: 1503: 1500: 1497: 1494: 1491: 1488: 1485: 1482: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1459: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1423: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1411: 1409: 1400: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1392: 1383: 1380: 1379: 1375: 1374: 1369: 1364: 1361: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1342: 1341: 1335: 1334: 1329: 1326: 1323: 1319: 1318: 1313: 1309: 1308: 1303: 1300: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1288:Evans v. U.S. 1285: 1281: 1277: 1275: 1272: 1269: 1265: 1264: 1259: 1256: 1253: 1249: 1248: 1243: 1240: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1223: 1222:The Vera Cruz 1220:Described in 1218: 1217:lex specialis 1213: 1210: 1207: 1204: 1201: 1198: 1194: 1191: 1188: 1184: 1179: 1176: 1173: 1170: 1166: 1161: 1158: 1155: 1152: 1149: 1146: 1143: 1140: 1137: 1132: 1129: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1116:Plain meaning 1115: 1114: 1113: 1111: 1095: 1092:February 2021 1086: 1082: 1079:This list is 1077: 1070: 1069: 1063: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1056: 1052: 1042: 1038: 1031: 1028: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1014: 1011: 1008: 1005: 1002: 1001: 1000: 991: 988: 986: 982: 981: 967: 963: 960: 957: 953: 950: 947: 943: 942: 937: 934: 931: 927: 923: 919: 915: 912: 909: 905: 901: 897: 893: 890: 887: 883: 880: 877: 873: 870: 867: 863: 859: 856: 853: 852: 846: 845: 841:rehearing of 840: 836: 833: 826: 822: 818: 814: 811: 810: 809: 806: 802: 798: 794: 790: 788: 783: 781: 773: 769: 765: 762: 758: 753: 752: 751: 749: 738: 735: 727: 717: 713: 707: 706: 701:This section 699: 695: 690: 689: 679:United States 676: 674: 670: 666: 665:United States 662: 658: 648: 645: 637: 627: 623: 617: 616: 611:This section 609: 605: 600: 599: 591: 582: 580: 576: 565: 563: 559: 555: 551: 543: 542: 537: 534: 533: 527: 524: 523: 518: 515: 512: 509: 506: 503: 502: 497: 496: 491: 490: 489: 486: 484: 480: 476: 475:mischief rule 470: 468: 463: 453: 451: 447: 443: 439: 435: 430: 426: 422: 418: 407: 402: 400: 395: 393: 388: 387: 385: 384: 379: 376: 374: 373:Legal process 371: 369: 368:Legal realism 366: 364: 361: 359: 356: 354: 351: 349: 346: 343: 339: 334: 331: 328: 324: 321: 319: 315: 311: 308: 307: 306: 305: 301: 300: 295: 292: 290: 289:Mischief rule 287: 285: 282: 281: 280: 279: 275: 274: 269: 266: 264: 261: 260: 259: 258: 254: 253: 250: 247: 246: 243: 235: 232: 217: 214: 206: 196: 192: 188: 182: 180: 173: 164: 163: 154: 151: 143: 132: 129: 125: 122: 118: 115: 111: 108: 104: 101: – 100: 96: 95:Find sources: 89: 85: 79: 78: 73:This article 71: 67: 62: 61: 56: 54: 47: 46: 41: 40: 35: 30: 21: 20: 4636: 4629: 4615: 4601: 4374:Jurisdiction 4342:Legal remedy 4297:Adjudication 4197:Legal theory 4035:Ratification 4030:Promulgation 4001:Proclamation 3981:Codification 3914:Human rights 3902:Divine right 3892:Constitution 3860:Women in law 3778:Military law 3773:Marriage law 3768:Maritime law 3667:Election law 3607:Aviation law 3597:Abortion law 3549:Property law 3485:Criminal law 3395: 3367: 3322: 3316: 3280:cite journal 3268:. Retrieved 3263: 3259: 3246: 3232:cite journal 3220:. Retrieved 3215: 3211: 3198: 3189: 3185: 3175: 3167:B.U. L. Rev. 3166: 3160: 3151: 3147: 3134: 3115: 3109: 3092: 3088: 3070: 3064: 3047: 3043: 3037: 3029: 3024: 3016: 3011: 3002: 2993: 2987: 2973: 2959:cite journal 2947:. Retrieved 2942: 2938: 2925: 2911:cite journal 2899:. Retrieved 2894: 2890: 2877: 2868: 2859: 2851: 2847: 2839: 2835: 2831: 2822: 2816: 2808: 2804: 2795: 2787: 2783: 2775: 2771: 2763: 2758: 2750: 2746: 2722: 2717: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2677: 2673: 2669: 2661: 2657: 2633: 2628: 2617: 2613: 2600: 2595: 2587: 2583: 2575: 2571: 2563: 2559: 2551: 2547: 2539: 2535: 2527: 2523: 2515: 2511: 2503: 2499: 2491: 2477: 2471: 2459:. Retrieved 2454: 2445: 2440:(Australia). 2425: 2421: 2416:(Australia). 2401: 2397: 2390:143 U.S. 457 2386: 2382: 2373:, (1884) 10 2370: 2366: 2352: 2338: 2333: 2323: 2319: 2310: 2301: 2289:. Retrieved 2285: 2273: 2261:. Retrieved 2257: 2233:. Retrieved 2229: 2210:242 U.S. 470 2205: 2201: 2186: 2170: 2166: 2158: 2153: 2141:. Retrieved 2137:the original 2127: 2118: 2113: 2104: 2098: 2063: 2059: 2049: 2026: 2015: 1992: 1981: 1972: 1963: 1954: 1950: 1937: 1928: 1915: 1896: 1890: 1877: 1868: 1852: 1840: 1836: 1825: 1821: 1804: 1787: 1779: 1774: 1733: 1684: 1676: 1673: 1670: 1659: 1629:literal rule 1616: 1613:Philosophies 1604: 1601: 1594: 1584:contra legem 1581:interpreted 1579: 1567: 1556: 1552: 1549: 1535: 1512: 1498: 1492: 1486: 1480: 1475: 1466: 1462: 1454: 1412: 1407: 1404: 1390: 1388: 1372: 1359: 1352: 1331: 1321: 1315: 1311: 1305: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1267: 1261: 1246: 1238: 1233: 1221: 1208: 1199: 1189: 1182: 1174: 1168: 1164: 1156: 1147: 1135: 1124: 1107: 1089: 1048: 1039: 1035: 1029: 1023: 1019: 1016:Declarations 1015: 1009: 1003: 997: 989: 984: 979: 978: 976: 965: 955: 945: 939: 929: 925: 921: 917: 907: 903: 899: 895: 885: 875: 861: 849: 842: 838: 820: 816: 807: 803: 799: 795: 791: 786: 784: 779: 777: 760: 756: 745: 730: 721: 710:Please help 705:verification 702: 673:Constitution 655: 640: 631: 620:Please help 615:verification 612: 588: 578: 571: 561: 547: 539: 530: 520: 499: 493: 487: 479:literal rule 471: 459: 416: 415: 267: 242: 227: 209: 200: 176: 146: 137: 127: 120: 113: 106: 94: 82:Please help 77:verification 74: 50: 43: 37: 36:Please help 33: 4546:Legislature 4477:Bureaucracy 4274:Rule of man 4269:Rule of law 4244:Libertarian 4107:Chinese law 4008:Legislation 3958:Regulations 3946:Law reports 3924:Natural law 3820:Reparations 3815:Refugee law 3738:Jurimetrics 3679:(Media law) 3617:Banking law 3612:Amnesty law 3590:Disciplines 3527:Private law 3169:: 321, 327. 2642:pp. 237–239 2606:534 U.S. 84 2461:November 9, 2345:Pearson plc 1745:Rule of law 1662:purposivism 1623:golden rule 1544:ratio legis 1515:Montesquieu 1472:U.S. courts 1314:; see also 1310:; see also 483:golden rule 450:regulations 442:legislature 421:legislation 323:Originalism 314:Living tree 294:Golden rule 4654:Categories 4539:Law school 4419:Prosecutor 4357:Magistrate 4144:Jewish law 4102:Common law 4023:Rulemaking 4018:Regulation 3968:Law making 3907:Divine law 3883:Legal code 3830:Sports law 3753:Law of war 3703:Health law 3688:Family law 3672:Energy law 3622:Bankruptcy 3559:Punishment 3554:Public law 3270:October 5, 3222:October 5, 2949:October 5, 2901:October 5, 2706:Bond v. US 2690:Bond v. US 2674:Bond v. US 2438:High Court 2414:High Court 2343:, p. 215 ( 2258:Justia Law 2230:Justia Law 2133:"Recitals" 2043:required.) 2022:"peculiar" 2009:required.) 1826:Shaw v DPP 1766:References 1729:Textualism 1666:textualism 1646:Textualism 1444:derogation 1362:deference) 1081:incomplete 1051:common law 724:March 2016 634:March 2016 564:statutes. 532:Factortame 522:Shaw v DPP 481:, and the 465:and given 434:common law 353:Textualism 140:March 2016 110:newspapers 39:improve it 4517:Judiciary 4512:Executive 4487:The bench 4424:Solicitor 4399:Barrister 4279:Sociology 4264:Pseudolaw 4204:Anarchist 4161:Roman law 4149:Parsi law 4134:Hindu law 4122:Canon law 4097:Civil law 4050:Concordat 3941:Precedent 3850:Trust law 3825:Space law 3662:Drugs law 3532:Procedure 3470:Civil law 3341:Jon May, 2291:March 11, 2263:April 14, 2235:April 14, 1451:Criticism 1349:Deference 1024:of Intent 1020:of Policy 759:specific 748:judiciary 669:Australia 562:interpret 438:judiciary 429:ambiguity 203:June 2024 191:talk page 45:talk page 4624:Category 4566:Tribunal 4551:Military 4394:Attorney 4364:Judgment 4224:Feminist 4139:Jain law 3936:Case law 3657:Cyberlaw 3564:Corporal 3542:Criminal 3512:Evidence 3502:Doctrine 3480:Contract 3346:Archived 3056:12908477 2729:(2008), 2309:(1999). 2090:28943724 1808:As with 1795:132, 2 1727:— 1723:— 1690:See also 1010:Findings 1004:Recitals 579:criteria 550:case law 495:mens rea 185:You may 4638:Outline 4575:History 4482:The bar 4456:Verdict 4404:Counsel 4384:Justice 4239:History 4062:Statute 3878:Charter 3840:Tax law 3788:Probate 3319:(1950). 3073:: 1148. 3032:§ 47:27 3019:§ 47:16 2375:App Cas 2195:1159604 2081:5598875 1557:further 1536:purpose 1360:Chevron 1112:names. 839:en banc 684:Meaning 657:Federal 462:England 456:History 444:and to 425:statute 124:scholar 4556:Police 4527:Agency 4409:Lawyer 4154:Sharia 4045:Treaty 4040:Repeal 3986:Decree 3897:Custom 3793:Estate 3743:Labour 3507:Equity 3393:about 3122: 3095:(70). 3054: 2737: 2731:p. 148 2648: 2608:(2001) 2484: 2392:(1892) 2347:2018). 2212:(1917) 2193: 2143:May 9, 2088: 2078: 1903: 1860: 1810:EU law 1045:Canons 661:Canada 477:, the 126: 119: 112: 105: 97: 4631:Index 4497:Court 4441:Trial 4347:Judge 4188:Yassa 3991:Edict 3537:Civil 3490:Crime 3256:(PDF) 3208:(PDF) 3192:: 59. 3144:(PDF) 2935:(PDF) 2887:(PDF) 2428: 2412:427, 2404: 2282:(PDF) 2037: 2003: 1988:"let" 1947:(PDF) 1540:Latin 1266:, or 1241:canon 1110:Latin 255:Forms 193:, or 131:JSTOR 117:books 4379:Jury 4327:Fiqh 4183:Xeer 3581:Tort 3497:Deed 3286:link 3272:2022 3238:link 3224:2022 3154:(1). 3120:ISBN 3052:PMID 2965:link 2951:2022 2917:link 2903:2022 2735:ISBN 2646:ISBN 2482:ISBN 2463:2015 2293:2022 2265:2023 2237:2023 2191:SSRN 2145:2011 2086:PMID 1957:(1). 1901:ISBN 1858:ISBN 1664:and 1639:The 1633:The 1627:The 1621:The 1553:make 1442:and 1304:See 1026:; or 983:(or 757:both 746:The 667:and 103:news 3451:Law 3152:122 3097:doi 3093:106 3028:2A 3015:2A 2943:122 2434:CLR 2410:CLR 2076:PMC 2068:doi 1955:122 1847:603 1831:220 1797:WLR 1741:573 1565:). 1370:in 1123:in 1087:. 1022:or 761:and 714:by 624:by 581:". 86:by 4656:: 3885:/ 3377:). 3282:}} 3278:{{ 3264:70 3262:. 3258:. 3234:}} 3230:{{ 3216:96 3214:. 3210:. 3190:11 3188:. 3184:. 3150:. 3146:. 3091:. 3079:^ 3048:55 3046:. 2961:}} 2957:{{ 2941:. 2937:. 2913:}} 2909:{{ 2895:97 2893:. 2889:. 2733:. 2725:. 2644:. 2640:. 2636:. 2620:, 2604:, 2490:. 2453:. 2377:59 2284:. 2256:. 2245:^ 2228:. 2217:^ 2208:, 2178:^ 2084:. 2074:. 2064:17 2062:. 2058:. 2025:. 1991:. 1953:. 1949:. 1845:AC 1843:1 1829:AC 1793:AC 1739:AC 1609:. 1542:: 1294:; 1290:; 1282:; 1250:, 864:, 823:, 525:). 485:. 452:. 340:, 316:/ 312:/ 48:. 3443:e 3436:t 3429:v 3288:) 3274:. 3240:) 3226:. 3128:. 3103:. 3099:: 3058:. 2982:. 2967:) 2953:. 2919:) 2905:. 2741:. 2652:. 2465:. 2360:. 2295:. 2267:. 2239:. 2147:. 2092:. 2070:: 2035:. 2001:. 1909:. 1816:. 1446:. 1415:' 1324:. 1094:) 1090:( 1012:; 1006:; 829:' 774:. 737:) 731:( 726:) 722:( 708:. 647:) 641:( 636:) 632:( 618:. 535:. 504:. 405:e 398:t 391:v 344:) 336:( 329:) 325:( 234:) 228:( 216:) 210:( 205:) 201:( 183:. 153:) 147:( 142:) 138:( 128:· 121:· 114:· 107:· 80:. 55:) 51:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.