Statutes of Interpretation: Public Carriers and Association

Other roads are normal local roads linking to other local places such as Hayes to Uxbridge. This would be used by some tourists who want to discover local areas and wanted to travel to another local city or places.

Judicial precedent as a whole is the way in which English law provides and maintains consistency and predictability. This assumption of consistency and predictability through judicial precedent allows the law to exude a sense of certainty, fairness and by extension some amount of flexibility; but the question is, how can something which is consistent and predictable to such a degree that it is considered certain exhibit flexibility? After all one would think that in order to be consistent and predictable there must be rigidity involved.

Statutory purpose is a paramount tool in Breyer’s pragmatism. Indeed, it is one of the two tools (the second we will see later) that he has found to be “the most useful” (Yale 12) because it conduces one of pragmatism’s central values: sustaining the work of democracy. Ordinarily, the pragmatist turns to statutory purpose “when statutory language does not clearly answer the question of what the statute means or how it applies” (Breyer 85). However, the majority uses purpose in a slightly different way here. Rather than using it to modify its interpretation of the CSA, the majority uses statutory purpose to analogize it with the AAA: “Just as the [AAA] was designed ‘to control the volume

The court observed that the ‘legal meaning’, i.e. meaning the legislature is taken to have intended, may not correspond to the literal or grammatical meaning. As four justices put

Although Callinan J in the Workchoices’ Case does not give full merit to these justifications, a textual approach to the interpretation of the constitution expressed in Engineers’ Case it not without its reasons. There are numerous considerations that need to be weighed when determining the appropriate methodology for constitutional interpretation. A major determining factor is the practicability of its legal application, and its ability to appropriately and fairly resolve issues entrenched in the text of the constitution. The following arguments provide a support for textualism, and a criticism of other methodologies.

In the Marbury versus Madison case, Chief Judge John Marshall distinguishes three questions that are used in the judgement of the case. He debates whether the applicant has a right to the commission he demands; whether, if he has a right and that right has been violated, the laws of his country afford him a

Attorney for the petitioner, Scott Keller, speaks first, citing Summum as precedent, and asserts messages displayed on license plates, like those displayed on monuments, are government speech. However, the attorney for the respondent, Roger George, contends the State created a “billboard opportunity” for personal messages when the specialty license plate program

States v. Campione, 942 F.2d 429, 437 (7th Cir. 1991); see also Glecier, 923 F.2d

This case involves a dispute over whether the laws of North Montana, South Montana, or Old York should be applied. Old York and North Montana have laws that prevent insurance companies from putting provisions in their insurance contracts that prohibit the stacking of multiple insurance claims for a single incident. In contrast, South Montana specifically allows such provisions. This Court ultimately concludes that Old York’s law should apply in this case because this dispute is one over a contract and the place of contracting is Old York. Defendants argue that the public policy exception should apply, but this Court rejects this argument because the Old York law is not fundamentally against the public policy of this state.

“This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme

The first group talked about Public tollways and why they are absolutely necessary. Toll roads can be built at no cost to taxpayers. The first idea of toll streets was to raise reserves for roadway upkeep by putting the weight of users, as opposed to neighborhood citizens. Today open organizations offer long-term concession

Instead of confining itself simply to the mischief which the statute was intended to correct, the court resolves ambiguities by reference to the statute’s overall purpose. Indeed, many modern statutes are not simply intended to correct mischiefs in the common law but have a wider social agenda. Under the purposive approach the courts should try to give effect to this wider statutory purpose in interpreting ambiguous provisions in statutes. For the purposive approach the example case can be Knowles v Liverpool City Council (1993). Knowles was employed by the Council and was injured at work whilst handling a defective flagstone. He claimed damages from them under the Employers’ Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969. The Council claimed that they were not liable as a flagstone could not be “equipment” within the Act. The House of Lords held that it could. The purpose of the statute was to protect employees from exposure to dangerous materials. The words “equipment” should be interpreted in this context. The Council were therefore liable for Knowles’ injuries (Paul, 2002).

This essay will examine the doctrine of Judicial precedent that helps form the English Legal System. It will illustrate various views that have been raised by Judges and relating cases to the use of ‘Stare decisis’ when creating precedents. In addition it will discuss how the developments in the powers of the courts now also allow them to depart from these precedents to an extent.

The famous US decision of Riggs v Palmer serves to illustrate a considerable strength in Dworkin’s argument concerning rules and principles. The New York court had to decide a case to determine whether a grandson who poisoned his grandfather to obtain his inheritance was in fact able to collect such an inheritance. At the time, there existed no statute or law that invalidated his claim as a beneficiary due to his involvement in the murder. Furthermore, the applicable legal rule seemed to be that legacies contained in legally valid testamentary dispositions are to be guaranteed by law in accordance with the wishes of the testator. According to Hart, the court should, in this situation, be decided upon pre-existing law. Yet despite this, the court majority found that the grandson could not inherit, instead appealing to moral reasoning by citing the principle that no one should be able to profit from ones crimes. A similar decision based on principle was handed down 70 years later in the case of Henningsen v Bloomfield Motors Inc. As a result of these cases, Dworkin is able

Illogical distinctions. The use of distinguishing to avoid past decisions can lead to ‘hair-splitting’ resulting in some areas of the law becoming very complex. From 1898 to 1966 the House of Lords was completely bound by its own past decisions unless the decision had been made per incuriam, that is, in