Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Interpretation And The Internet, Cameron J. Hutchison
Interpretation And The Internet, Cameron J. Hutchison
Cameron J Hutchison
Almost twenty years have passed since the advent of the internet. The revolutionary nature of the technology is no longer in doubt. It has transformed the way we communicate, recreate, carry on business and conduct our affairs. Despite the internet’s “differentness”, courts have proven adept at adapting extant law to the features and demands of this new technology. In this paper, I propose in some detail the manner in which courts should interpret law and (just as importantly) internet facts in connection with broadly stated legal rules. My basic argument is that courts must be appreciate both the totality of …
The Art Of Statutory Interpretation: Identifying The Approach Of The Judges Of The United States Court Of Appeals For Veterans' Claims And The United States Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit, Linda D. Jellum
Linda D. Jellum
This article explores judicial approaches to statutory interpretation, a topic of interest to scholars, academics, and practitioners. Perhaps more than any other subject, understanding the theory of interpretation is critical to understanding statutory interpretation because theory drives every aspect of statutory interpretation. A judge’s theory of interpretation determines what information a judge will consider when searching for meaning. For example, some judges will not look at legislative history or social context for meaning unless the text of the statute is ambiguous or absurd. Assuming that the legislative history is helpful to their case, lawyers must learn to “talk the talk” …
Substantive Canons And Faithful Agency, Amy Coney Barrett
Substantive Canons And Faithful Agency, Amy Coney Barrett
Journal Articles
Federal courts have long employed substantive canons of construction in the interpretation of statutes. For example, they apply the rule of lenity, which directs that ambiguous criminal statutes be interpreted in favor of the defendant, and the avoidance canon, which directs that statutes be interpreted in a manner that prevents the court from having to address serious constitutional questions. They also apply so-called “clear statement” rules — for example, absent a clear statement from Congress, a federal court will not interpret a statute to abrogate state sovereign immunity. While some commentators have attempted to rationalize these and other substantive canons …