Sentences with phrase «to interpret the statute»
"To interpret the statute" means to understand and explain the meaning of a law in a way that is clear and makes sense to everyone. It involves analyzing and explaining the intentions and implications of the law. Full definition
The superior courts have generally greater, but at least equal expertise in interpreting statutes.
ablawg.ca
It concluded from the cases interpreting the statute that consolidation was not intended to effect a merger of the consolidated cases.
To illustrate the Australian rules require courts to interpret statutes by reference to their policy (the object and purpose of the statute).
This is the least legitimate of the three reasons for interpreting a statute.
In my next post, I will summarize my views on how courts should approach the task of interpreting statutes.
The latter label better captures the notion of a decision maker interpreting a statute that established the decision maker and under which the decision maker operates.
Although these statutes typically contain no express limit on the size of permissible gifts, courts interpreting the statutes require corporate charitable donations to be reasonable both as to the amount and the purpose for which they are given.
«We can not interpret a statute so as to avoid injustice or hardship if its language is clear and unambiguous and requires a different construction»... «If the Legislature has intentionally omitted a provision from a statute, no court may then reintroduce it.»»
Case law interpreting the statute states that «ordinary competition» is not prohibited, and the statute allows enforcement of a non-compete covenant only when there is «unfair competition.»
Two decisions handed down by the Supreme Judicial Court in early March, 1999, demonstrate the wide variety of techniques used by the court when interpreting statutes.
Courts tend to defer to federal agencies on interpreting statutes like Dickey - Wicker, and the fact that the HHS interpretation has been consistent and wasn't challenged in court until now may weaken the plaintiffs» case.
Judges interpret statutes, and as this comment states the statutes are in need of rewriting.
If the matter involves interpreting statute and case law or applying law to a set of facts, an LPO can offer little assistance.
When undertaking statutory interpretation, we must «refrain from interpreting a statute so as to produce an absurd or unreasonable result.»
In my view, she must also interpret statutes, regulations and soft - law instruments consistently with Charter values, including those underlying the guarantee of freedom of religion.
In enacting ERISA's fiduciary definition, Congress drew upon principles of trust law and the law governing investment advisers and broker - dealers that must be considered in interpreting the statute today.
«The court should instead have interpreted the statute de novo, according no deference to NIH's interpretation.
The general rule around interpreting statutes is that they are to be given a liberal reading, where a judge is to interpret any ambigious provision in a statute in the manner that best complies with the intent of the Act.
Clark was a lawyer before becoming a justice of the peace, and therefore already had experience interpreting statutes and cases.
But my view of the world is different from that embodied in Title VII, and I think the majority justices interpreted the statute more or less correctly.
This semester, a primary goal of my Legislation course is to prepare students to craft briefs and memos interpreting statutes.
The provisions of the New York law parallel those of the federal law and courts generally have interpreted the statutes similarly.
«Equally important, there is no point in interpreting a statute in a manner that inflicts significant public costs while providing no corresponding benefits,» said Andrew.
The Congress is not likely to have mandated this result, and we do not interpret the statute to require it.»
Second, one of the main ways to research case law interpreting a statute is by doing a boolean search on the code section of that statute.
If we break down this approach into its constituent parts, we see there are five things the Supreme Court has said that courts must consider when interpreting a statute: 1) the grammatical and ordinary meaning of the words, 2) the textual context in which the words appear, 3) the scheme of the Act, 4) the object of the Act, and 5) the intention of Parliament or the provincial legislature.
Israeli courts interpreted these statutes to mean that all laws were subject to these rights, although whether this was the original intent of the drafters is under dispute.
Gorsuch did, however, praise the judges he disagreed with for interpreting the statute as they understood it to be written, even quoting Charles Dickens in describing the law as an «ass,» an «idiot.»
He describes as principle, dating back to 18th century England, judges interpreting a statute «to give effect to «the intent of the legislature».»
Deciding whether hacking back is a criminal offence thus involves interpreting statutes that may have had something else in mind.
Remember, statutes state the law, and cases interpret the statutes.
Courts balance interests all the time in interpreting statutes.
In my last post, I outlined the different reasons for why courts must interpret statutes, the most common being the incompleteness of rules.
Most lawyers and judges would cringe at the notion that courts develop policy when they interpret statutes.
Thus under the Railway Act privative clauses, comparable in every respect to those currently in the ACT, where the Board is acting without its jurisdiction and has not committed a reviewable error of law interpreting its statute, any errors of fact which it may commit are not reviewable.
In this case, the question was what weight should be given to declaratory legislation when a court is required to interpret a statute?
It is how the courts have interpreted this statute, culminating in the decision in Ilott v Mitson, which is of particular importance.
The Court reasoned that it was their role to interpret statute and not enact it and the Employment Standards Act does not, unlike the Consumer Protection Act, preclude arbitration clauses.
In late 2011 both the CRTC and Industry Canada published drafted regulations to interpret the statute.
What constitutes stalking vs. non criminal conduct can often hinge solely upon how law enforcement chooses to interpret the statute.
If the statute is ambiguous, then find cases that interpret the statute.
Thankfully, the top U.S. court will interpret a statute that the Federal Circuit and Judge Koh in the Northern District of California believe allows an unapportioned disgorgement of infringer's profits regardless of how many other patented and non-patented elements a product may have — an approach that is not applied to any other intellectual property right.
Courts interpreting statutes that manifestly do not address these issues can not easily create nuanced rules: the statute either applies extraterritorially or it does not, the particular demand made by the government either should or should not be characterized as extraterritorial.
The justices added that to interpret this statute any differently would be against public policy because it would allow insurers to deny motorists coverage in a way that would defeat the purpose of a claimant's buying insurance in the first place.