When you "read in" something, you are finding an implied meaning in the text and assuming that was what the writer intended. For example, there is no specific "right to privacy" in the Constitution, but later interpretations found that meaning implied by Article IV, which refers to people being "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."
Peter Benson Maxwell has written: 'On the interpretation of statutes' -- subject(s): Interpretation and construction, Law, Statutes 'The interpretation of statutes' -- subject(s): Interpretation and construction, Law, Statutes
what is the objective of statutory interpretation
object of interpretation of statutes are as follows: 1. codifying statute 2.consolditating statute 3.declaratory statute
Z. A. Channa has written: 'The interpretation of statutes' -- subject(s): Interpretation and construction, Law
Statutes passed by U.S. Congress are typically general in nature. The words used in the statute need to be applied to particular circumstance, cases. Attorneys argue about proper interpretation of statutes. When an appeals court decides which interpretation is correct, that ruling stands as a valid interpretation until a higher court decides otherwise. The interpretation of a statute becomes the law of the land.
Expansive interpretation refers to a method of understanding legal texts, statutes, or regulations in a broad and inclusive manner, allowing for a wider application of their provisions. This approach often seeks to capture the underlying intent of the law and adapt it to contemporary contexts or unforeseen circumstances. Expansive interpretation contrasts with a narrow or literal reading, which restricts the meaning to its most straightforward interpretation. It is commonly used in constitutional law, where broader interpretations can enhance rights and protections.
No. One of the functions of courts is to apply the statutes to the facts of a particular case.
The Interpretation of Laws Act is crucial for understanding statutes as it provides guidelines on how to interpret legal texts, ensuring consistency and clarity in legal reasoning. It establishes rules regarding the meanings of words, phrases, and provisions, helping to avoid ambiguity and misinterpretation. By outlining principles such as the intention of the legislature and the context within which laws are enacted, the Act aids courts and practitioners in applying statutes correctly. Ultimately, it serves to uphold the rule of law and promote justice by ensuring that laws are understood and enforced as intended.
No, statutes are not decided by the courts; they are laws enacted by legislative bodies, such as Congress or state legislatures. However, courts interpret and apply these statutes when resolving legal disputes. Through this interpretation, courts can influence how statutes are understood and enforced, which may lead to significant legal precedents. Ultimately, while courts do not create statutes, their rulings can shape the application of those laws.
Oral interpretation
Jan Balakian has written: 'Reading the plays of Wendy Wasserstein' -- subject(s): Criticism and interpretation 'Reading the plays of Wendy Wasserstein' -- subject(s): Criticism and interpretation
no relation with Bulgaria, the country and category- Bulgaria