Lexical ordering around a plain meaning rule
gained judicial support
of Woodbridge for the VTLA.<br />The Virginia Association of Defense Attorneys said it was weighing in to "promote a level playing field."<br />"Litigants in Virginia including insurance companies and their insureds rely on steady, predictable, bright-line rules, including application of Virginia's Plain Meaning Rule
, settled case law precedent and the rule of stare decisis," wrote Alexander S.
Franken confirmed that Gorsuch applied the "plain meaning rule
" to the case, which states a law must be interpreted and applied to the case according to a normal, word-for-word reading of the law.
(194) The court started with the plain meaning rule
(195) and said that it ultimately decided the case based upon it.
The court often cites the plain meaning rule
as well: "If the intent of the legislature is clear and unambiguous, by giving the language used in the statute its plain and ordinary meaning, then we are bound by that intent and cannot resort to any statutory construction in interpreting the statute." (10) In other words, the court's conclusion that a text is unambiguous ends the inquiry and bars arguments based on anything beyond the text of the statute.
(43) The Court correctly held that following the plain meaning rule
, the terms "use" and "utter" do not create an ongoing action, thus failing to meet the "explicit language of the statute" requirement necessary to conclude that using a counterfeit immigration document is a continuing offense.
In reaching its conclusion, however, the majority misapplied the plain meaning rule
because it did not give all of the words in the will their usual and ordinary meaning.
The problem with the plain meaning rule
and the no reformation rule is that, in certain cases, they deny to individuals remedies when there is evidence that is genuine and persuasive.
hard parol evidence rule, retains the plain meaning rule
In the nineteenth century, what came to be known as the "plain meaning rule
" was increasingly invoked by federal and state courts, at times to deny that there was any need to interpret statutory language deemed to be plain and unambiguous.
The California Supreme Court, speaking through then-Chief Justice Traynor, rejected the plain meaning rule
and held that such an approach ignored the relevance of the intention of the parties.
Only the plain meaning rule
and Supreme Court precedent are being used in a dueling manner in a large percentage of the cases.