Suchergebnisse

The Supreme Court of Tennessee reconsidered several problems in the field of Statutory Interpretation during the Survey period, but its decisions largely followed principles already established in Tennessee and other jurisdictions. Constitutional Requirements Certain problems in the field of legislation arise in Tennessee by reason of state constitutional provisions. The Court is committed to the position of interpreting these provisions more or less irrespective of the construction of comparable provisions in other state constitutions.' The Constitution of the State of Tennessee provides: "No bill shall become a law, which embraces more than one subject; that subject to be expressed in the title." A chief justice of the Tennessee Supreme Court who was a member of the constitutional convention of 1870 which drafted this provision has explained its purpose: "The Convention evidently designed to cut up by the roots, not only the pernicious system of legislation, which embraced in one act incongruous and independent subjects, but also the evil practice of giving titles to acts which conveyed no real information as to the objects embraced in its provisions." The title of a statute may be either narrow and restricted or broad and general, as the legislature may determine. In either case, if the legislation under the title is germane to the general subject, it is not invalid under the one-subject provision. If the title is general, it justifies provisions in the body of the statute not incongruous with its provisions as to the manner, means and instrumentality whereby it may be enforced or its purpose accomplished.

This chapter describes the sources of law created by the legislative branch of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The materials include the laws enacted by the Virginia General Assembly, the publications in which those laws are found, and the resources available to assist in interpreting the legislative enactments. The cardinal rule in Virginia statutory construction is that the statute expresses the intention of the lawmakers. Therefore, it falls upon the courts to ascertain the General Assembly's intent where that intent becomes important in the application of statutory materials. When researching Virginia statutes, certain principles of interpretation and application must be kept in mind. The courts may not alter or correct a statute and are not permitted to apply the rules of construction where no ambiguity exists in the statute's language. Nor should the courts be concerned with the motives or wisdom of the legislation. Working from these principles, the courts have formulated rules of construction to resolve ambiguities that genuinely exist in a statute or that arise because of a conflict between different statutes. A discussion of these critical rules is beyond the scope of this book.

Mode of access: Internet. ; Title varies: 1890-1947, Statutory rules and orders; 1948-51, Statutory instruments other than those of a local, personal or temporary character.

"Guiding you through each step, Statutory Nuisance takes you from initial assessment of a potential nuisance, through document drafting to the magistrates' court and beyond to the higher courts. Clear, readable and user friendly this book provides lucid explanation, practical guidance and the primary materials needed in court - all in one handy volume. Accessible to the layman, yet illuminating to the experienced practitioner, this title expresses a view on the issues not yet resolved by the courts. The new 4th edition covers the significant legislative changes such as: - The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 - Coventry v Lawrence [2014] - Lorna Grace Peires v Bickerton Aerodromes Ltd [2016] - Forster v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] - Cocking v Eacott [2016]."--