Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Judicial interpretation is the way in which the judiciary construes the law, particularly constitutional documents, legislation and frequently used vocabulary.This is an important issue in some common law jurisdictions such as the United States, Australia and Canada, because the supreme courts of those nations can overturn laws made by their legislatures via a process called judicial review.
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.
Ordinary words are given their ordinary meaning, technical terms are given their technical meaning, and local, cultural terms are recognized as applicable. The plain meaning rule is the mechanism that prevents courts from taking sides in legislative or political issues. [ 2 ]
Where appropriate, judicial discretion allows a judge to decide a legal case or matter within a range of possible decisions. However, where the exercise of discretion goes beyond constraints set down by legislation, by binding precedent, or by a constitution, the court may be abusing its discretion and undermining the rule of law.
Equity (law) Erga omnes; Erie doctrine; Essential facilities doctrine; Estoppel; Evasion (law) Everything which is not forbidden is allowed; Ex turpi causa non oritur actio; Exceptional circumstances; Exclusionary rule; Executive privilege; Exhausted combination doctrine; Exhaustion doctrine under U.S. law; Exhaustion of intellectual property ...
Like all terms implied by courts, customs can be excluded by express terms or if they are inconsistent with a contract's nature. [8] Lord Devlin in Kum v Wah Tat Bank Ltd. [9] summed up the policy of the law: Universality, as a requirement of custom, raises not a question of law but a question of fact.
Umbra, penumbra, and antumbra formed through windows and shutters. Jurists have used the term "penumbra" as a metaphor for rights implied in the constitution. [1]In United States constitutional law, the penumbra includes a group of rights derived, by implication, from other rights explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights. [2]
When a law is construed to preempt, the result is a broad and indiscriminate extinguishment of substantive and remedial state law, and sensitive to this problem, the Court has occasionally said, in cases like Wyeth v. Levine (2009), that it will find preemption only if Congress has clearly expressed preemptive intent. [13]