Legal History Commons^™

The Scrivener’S Error, Ryan D. Doerfler

Northwestern University Law Review

It is widely accepted that courts may correct legislative drafting mistakes, i.e., so-called scrivener’s errors, if and only if such mistakes are “absolutely clear.” The rationale is that if a court were to recognize a less clear error, it might be “rewriting” the statute rather than correcting a technical mistake.

This Article argues that the standard is much too strict. The current rationale ignores that courts can “rewrite,” i.e., misinterpret, a statute both by recognizing an error and by failing to do so. Accordingly, because the current doctrine is designed to protect against one type of mistake (false positives) but …

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As An International Human Rights Leader, Henry J. Richardson Iii

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Prohibition - Is The Writ Of Prohibition A Prerogative Writ?, Russel T. Walker

Michigan Law Review

The writ of prohibition originally issued from the king's temporal courts to the ecclesiastical courts to prevent any usurpation of jurisdiction of the king's courts by the spiritual courts. Prohibition has been classed as one of the prerogative writs, that is, a writ issued by the extraordinary power of the sovereign to interfere with private rights in order to preserve the prerogatives and franchises of the state. The writ of prohibition differed historically from the other prerogative writs in that its issuance was not discretionary with the court, but rather it was held to issue as a matter of right …