Sentences with phrase «wording of the statute»

My point is that there's nothing surprising about police officers who consider the exact wording of the statute (in this case, the requiement to signal a lane change) to be only mildly relevant to what they want to charge.

But the question remains whether the majority of the Supreme Court will consider prosecuting a commercial fisherman under SOX a «curious» enough case to justify looking beyond the unambiguous words of the statute.

Since DUI laws (including underage DUI laws) and the precise wording of each statute vary from state to state, the Canadian admissibility of an individual can also depend on the US state in which the offense happened.

For all other offences, you'd need to refer to the wording of the statute.

Fairfax Commonwealth's Attorney Raymond F. Morrogh told The Post that he respectfully disagrees with the decision, quoting a U.S. Supreme Court case that states, «If a literal construction of the words of a statute be absurd, the act must be so construed as to avoid the absurdity.»

The court felt it was unable to subsume the accused's behaviour under the particular, and admittedly awkward, wording of the statute.

He explained that while judicial interpretation remains an integral part of the common law system, care should be taken to ensure that the words of a statute do not become «unduly extended» and that attention is not «diverted from what has been enacted to what has been judicially said about the enactment.»

There were confused under the wording of the statute as to whether you had until the day after the second anniversary of the injury or on the anniversary.

The second pertains to prevailing case law, that is, how the courts interpret the words of a statute.

While it may be the case that the original legislative intend behind such law was to prohibit law enforcement from literal wire - tapping, the wording of the statute is broader.

This approach, supported by the structure and wording of the statute, seems to me to be preferable because it avoids the unpalatable possibility of trading property for jail time, and therefore ensures that the legitimate liberty interests of individuals will be protected in a more consistent way.

In such a case, the courts are likely to re-interpret the wording of the statute so that it is sensible to talk about «divulging» (the court always find an intent underlying the words of a legislative body).

For the Court of Appeal, Horizon's interpretation would ``... require this Court to divine legislative motivations that go beyond the legislative intent as expressed in the words of the statute.»

In circumstances where the wording of a statute allows for overbroad application, the proper remedy is to read down the legislation in question to eliminate the potential for a Charter breach.

Bauman C.J.B.C. agreed that the words of a statute must be construed «as they would have been the day after the statute passed,» but took a different view of the original meaning.

The majority began its analysis by citing the «well - established interpretive principle that the words of a statute are to be construed as they would have been the day after the statute passed.»

This seems to be what the Court is getting at since they have listed it separately from the words of the statute «read in their entire context.»

It is one thing to utilize legislative history or other non-textual sources as evidence of what the words of the statute mean.

Instead of starting with the primary rule that any fundamental right, such as a right to freedom, can only be removed if there is express statutory authority to that effect, the court noted that where the wording of a statute is not specific, the power to remove freedom can be implied where it is necessary to do so and the purpose of the statute would otherwise be frustrated.

But the really hard questions that arise in this area are not about whether or not a court has given effect to the intention of Parliament (or the words of the statute).

[3] The court's role is to interpret the statute not enact it; if the sense of the words of the statute is clear and unambiguous, the court must interpret the words literally and in accordance with their plain meaning even if the consequences are absurd or unjust.

[2] The court's approach to interpretation is teleological or purposeful, and to interpret a statute, the words of the statute are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the statute, the object of the statute, and the intention of the legislator.

Lord Hope said: «The answer to the question whether the right of recourse under s 75 (1) does extend to foreign transactions is to be found in the words of the statute, not in any presumption either way as to its application extraterritorially... The words «in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement»... are unqualified.

The court stated that it has been long established that there is but one principle or approach to statutory interpretation which is that the words of the statute are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act and the intention of the enacting legislative body.

The wording of the statute played d a major role in determining their decision.

«The time is now to go back and revise the words of the statute to make clear that it only provides shelter if you take reasonable steps to address illegal activity that you know about,» Citron said in an interview.

I am not a lawyer, but there does seem to be some ambiguity in the wording of the statute as to whether this is the correct way to go or if you can charge the 4 % on the full «amount due for one month».