Skip to Content

What is the plain meaning rule in law?

The plain meaning rule in law is a rule of interpretation which states that the words chosen by the legal drafter should be understood in their plain, ordinary, and popular sense. This applies to interpreting laws and contracts, as well as interpreting court decisions.

The purpose of the plain meaning rule is to prevent judges from modifying the language of a law with their own personal interpretations, as well as to ensure consistency in decisions among different courts.

Under the plain meaning rule, the judge cannot interpret a document’s words in any other way than as plain, ordinary words that a person would understand in everyday language. Judges must reject attempts to twist the language of a law so that it has a different or unintended meaning.

Therefore, the application of the plain meaning rule ensures that the document’s intent is carried out according to the way it was originally drafted.

What are the two meanings of rule?

The word ‘rule’ has two distinct meanings. The first is as a noun that signifies a regulation or directive issued by an authority. This can take the form of laws, rules of conduct, codes of behavior, protocols, or even just informal expectations.

For example, a law may dictate that vehicles drive on the right side of the road, or a workplace may have a rule that employees must arrive at work at 9am.

The second meaning of the word ‘rule’ is as a verb, signifying to exercise control or power over a person, a group of people, or an area of territory. This use of the word typically implies some degree of authority, such as the rule of a king or queen over a country, or the rule of a parent over a family.

In this context, “rule” means to govern, manage, or direct, with the connotations of dominion, command, and even domination.

What is an example of rule?

A rule can be any code, regulation, or guideline that is imposed to control, direct, or govern behavior. Examples of rules include laws, policies, social norms, regulations, and religious edicts. Laws are rules that are set by a governing body, such as a state or federal government, and backed by a system of sanctions and punishments if they are not followed.

Policies, on the other hand, are created by institutions, organizations, or businesses and are often more flexible than laws. Social norms are standards of behavior that are generally accepted in a given society (e.

g. standing up when an elder enters the room). Regulations are rules set and enforced by administrative bodies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency or the Securities and Exchange Commission. Finally, religious edicts are rules set by a spiritual guide or leader, such as a priest, minister, or rabbi.

What is another name for legislative law quizlet?

Another name for legislative law is Statutory Law. Statutory law is law created by a legislative body, like a state legislature or the U. S. Congress. It is written into codes or statutes and is considered to be a major source of law.

It is intended to be a general statement of the law, rather than a specific application of it, and is usually enforced by police officers and courts.

Which is an example of a statutory law quizlet?

A statutory law is a law passed by a legislature or other governing body such as city councils and commissions. An example of a statutory law would be a law on the books in all 50 states that makes it illegal to look at, possess, or distribute child pornography.

Other examples of statutory laws would be laws regarding the minimum wage, workplace safety and environmental protection.

What does the court mean by plain text?

Plain text refers to unformatted text without any additional formatting or decorations, such as italics, bolding, underlining, fonts, size, color, or any other enhancements. It is any text that is not code and is not embedded in an application or document.

Plain text can be written and read by humans as well as computers and can be copied, edited, and printed. Plain text is typically used when writing legal documents, as it can be easier to read and understand than text with special formatting.

Plain text also allows for more flexibility when editing, since all of the formatting is stripped away and one can more easily adjust specific elements of the text.

When the words of a statute are clear plain and precise then?

When the words of a statute are clear, plain, and precise, it means that the meaning of the statute is unambiguous and can be determined without any difficulty. Judges interpret these statutes by relying entirely on the language of the statute itself without having to look to broader considerations or external sources.

This is known as the “plain meaning” rule, as courts readily interpret statutes according to the words that were chosen. This approach is usually favored because it allows the will of the legislature to be clearly and unmistakably expressed and understood.

Furthermore, when statutes are clear, plain, and precise, it reduces the possibility of judicial overreach because the meaning of the statute is explicitly defined and thus reduces the need for speculation by the court.

This approach also promotes consistency because the words chosen by the legislature will likely be consistent in their application.

Which judicial approach involves taking the plain and ordinary meaning of the words?

The judicial approach that involves taking the plain and ordinary meaning of the words is called literal constructionism. This approach is sometimes referred to as ‘plain literalism’, ‘plain meaning’, or ‘plain text’.

It is a very common method of statutory interpretation and is used by judges to understand legal documents, including statutes and contracts. The main idea behind literal constructionism is that the best way to understand the legal document is to take the plain and ordinary meaning of the words.

This means that words are to be interpreted in their ordinary and usual sense, rather than being given a special or technical meaning. In addition, the words must be given the meaning that was intended by the drafters of the document and must be interpreted in a way that is consistent with its overall purpose.

The literal constructionists believe that the meaning of the words is to be found in the context in which they were used. This is why it is important to look at the document as a whole and how it fits into the legal system.

What should be ignored while interpreting a statute?

When interpreting a statute, it is important to note that some features should be ignored. These features could be words, phrases, or clauses that are intended to limit the scope of the statute or that do not have any practical effect.

Additionally, words or phrases that are unclear, vague, or ambiguous should also be ignored. It is important to note that any interpretations of the statute should not be based on the literal language alone, but should be based on the underlying purpose or principle of the statute.

Moreover, while interpreting a statute, any words, phrases, or clauses that may contradict the underlying purpose of the statute should be disregarded. Finally, extraneous information, such as media reports or previous case decisions that are not connected to the statute, should also be ignored.

What exceptions to depart from the plain ordinary meaning of words in a statute are allowed by the golden rule of interpretation?

The golden rule of interpretation, sometimes referred to as the “plain language rule,” states that the interpretation of words in a statute should always be guided by the plain, ordinary meaning of the words.

This rule serves to simplify the application of the law by providing consistent and clear guidance for all legal proceedings. However, in rare cases, exceptions to this rule may be allowed.

The most commonly accepted exceptions to the rule of plain language interpretation are technical terms defined by the statute, terms of art that have acquired a specialized meaning through legal precedent, words with a popular but unusual meaning, words taken from a foreign language, and any words that may not have a plain and ordinary meaning.

When one or more of these exceptions applies, the court will look to legal policies, laws, and approved commentaries for guidance in interpretation.

For instance, statutes may require the interpretation of a technical term, such as “reachable” in a civil procedure context. While “reachable” may have several meanings in general usage, when used in the context of this type of law its interpretation may be limited to the specialized meaning it has acquired via legal precedent.

In such a case, the court may depart from the plain language interpretation and instead refer to accepted commentaries and case law to properly apply the word within the statute.

While the golden rule of interpretation holds that the plain and ordinary sense of the words should generally guide its interpretation, exceptions may be allowed in rare circumstances. By understanding the commonly accepted exceptions to the rule and looking to guidance from laws, policies, and commentaries, applying the law becomes easier and more consistent.

Where the words of a statute are clear plain and free from ambiguity it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation?

It is a well established legal principle that when the words of a statute are clear, plain and free from ambiguity, they must be given their ordinary and literal meaning and applied without any attempted interpretation or construction.

This principle is based on the idea that ambiguity in the law should be avoided at all costs and that the law should be applied according to what is written on the page, rather than what judges think it ought to mean.

Consequently, when construing statutes, courts are usually reluctant to consider any sort of interpretation, regardless of its legitimacy. In support of this principle, Chief Justice Marshall of the US Supreme Court famously remarked that “it is a well settled principle of law, that where the words of an act are unambiguous, no room is left for construction, and the duty of the court is simply to declare the sense of the language which the legislature has used.


What is the rule in the interpretation of a clear provision of statute?

The rule in the interpretation of a clear provision of statute is that the plain language of the statute should be given effect. This means that when the language is unambiguous and does not require interpretation, the court should apply the plain language of the statute.

Judges should not attempt to impose their own interpretation of the statute, as doing so undermines the purpose of the statute and can lead to unnecessary confusion. The plain language of the statute must be examined in its ordinary and natural sense in order to determine the intention of the legislature.

It is also important to consider the entire context of the statute in determining the meaning of any particular provision. In the absence of ambiguity in the language of the statute, the court will apply a standard of literal interpretation which implies that the words of the statute should be given their ordinary and natural meaning.

When the law is clear and unambiguous?

When the law is clear and unambiguous, it means that there is no debate as to how it should be interpreted. It also means that there is no subjectivity or doubt as to its meaning. Clear and unambiguous laws are typically written in a way that is easy to understand and apply to the situation at hand.

This clarity of meaning prevents confusion and reduces the chance of any dispute or misunderstanding arising. Furthermore, it ensures consistent application across the board and gives people the ability to predict outcomes based upon the law.

Such clarity and predictability help to ensure fairness and uphold the rule of law.

When the meaning of the words used in statute are clear unambiguous CAN court adopt any other rule of interpretation or give any other meaning to words used in statute?

No, when the meaning of the words used in a statute are clear and unambiguous, courts should not attempt to adopt any other rules of interpretations, nor should they give any other meaning to the words used in the statute.

This is because the court’s job is to interpret the legislative intent, not to change words into a meaning that better fits a particular situation. Therefore, when the original intent of a statute is clear and was deliberately chosen, courts should not seek to change the meaning of language that was used for a specific purpose.

In such cases, the court’s role is to determine the legal consequences of the language used in the statute, rather than attempt to modify it. In other words, if the language used in a statute is clear and unambiguous, the courts should not tamper with it, no matter how convenient doing so may be.