Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The plain meaning rule attempts to guide courts faced with litigation that turns on the meaning of a term not defined by the statute, or on that of a word found within a definition itself. According to the plain meaning rule, absent a contrary definition within the statute, words must be given their plain, ordinary and literal meaning.
Herbert Broom′s text of 1858 on legal maxims lists the phrase under the heading ″Rules of logic″, stating: Reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself. [9] ceteris paribus: with other things the same More commonly rendered in English as "All other things being equal."
The golden rule in English law is one of the rules of statutory construction traditionally applied by the English courts. The rule can be used to avoid the consequences of a literal interpretation of the wording of a statute when such an interpretation would lead to a manifest absurdity or to a result that is contrary to principles of public policy.
(The Center Square) – A Washington bill would broaden the definition of a “hate crime” under state law so that it does not need to be the only motivating factor for a defendant in a court ...
The term crime does not, in modern criminal law, have any simple and universally accepted definition, [2] though statutory definitions have been provided for certain purposes. [3] The most popular view is that crime is a category created by law; in other words, something is a crime if declared as such by the relevant and applicable law. [2]
This means that the plain meaning rule (and statutory interpretation as a whole) should only be applied when there is an ambiguity. Because the meaning of words can change over time, scholars and judges typically will recommend using a dictionary to define a term that was published or written around the time the statute was enacted. Technical ...
The distinction between violent and nonviolent crime, like any other sharp divide, can’t solve the fundamental challenges of criminal law. It just restates them—and, too often, disguises them ...
At common law, this was the name of a mixed action (springing from the earlier personal action of ejectione firmae) which lay for the recovery of the possession of land, and for damages for the unlawful detention of its possession. The action was highly fictitious, being in theory only for the recovery of a term for years, and brought by a ...