Ads
related to: statutory interpretation case lawlegal.thomsonreuters.com has been visited by 10K+ users in the past month
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Statutory interpretation is the process of resolving those ambiguities and deciding how a particular bill or law will apply in a particular case. 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).
This category includes United States case law interpreting important statutes or setting precedents for the manner in which courts are to interpret statutes. Subcategories This category has the following 10 subcategories, out of 10 total.
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983), commonly known in U.S. administrative law as State Farm, is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning regulations requiring passive restraints in cars.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that set forth the legal test used when U.S. federal courts must defer to a government agency's interpretation of a law or statute. [1]
The case also marks the current state of affairs for the non-delegation doctrine. [5] When the court is faced with a provision that appears to be an impermissible delegation of the authority, it will use tools of statutory interpretation to try to narrow the delegation of power.
The major questions doctrine is a principle of statutory interpretation applied in United States administrative law cases which states that courts will presume that Congress does not delegate to executive agencies issues of major political or economic significance.
The issue of statutory interpretation for the Court was whether a private commercial arbitral tribunal constitutes a "foreign or international tribunal" under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) and therefore empowers federal districts courts to compel the production by persons subject to their jurisdiction of documents and testimony for such tribunals.
Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart [1992] UKHL 3, is a landmark decision of the House of Lords on the use of legislative history in statutory interpretation.The court established the principle that when primary legislation is ambiguous then, in certain circumstances, the court may refer to statements made in the House of Commons or House of Lords in an attempt to interpret the meaning of the ...