Does a trial court's reliance on a Webster's Dictionary definition constitute an acceptable manner of ascertaining the ordinary and popular usage of words in the English language?

California, United States of America

The following excerpt is from Jackson v. Barbee, C058843 (Cal. App. 3/16/2009), C058843 (Cal. App. 2009):

The trial court's reliance on the Webster's Dictionary definition constitutes an acceptable manner of ascertaining the ordinary and popular usage of words in the English language. When the issue turns on the meaning of a phrase employed in CC&Rs, "the phrase is to be interpreted in its ordinary and popular sense rather than according to some strict legal or technical meaning. `"This ordinary and popular sense is to be related to the circumstances under which the words are used, having in mind the purpose of the contract and the general situation which brought it into existence." [Citation.]'" (King v. Kugler (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 651, 655.)

Other Questions

When a defendant makes a mid-trial motion to revoke his self represented status and have standby counsel appointed for the remainder of the trial, does the trial court have a duty to manage the trial? (California, United States of America)
Does a jury need to be instructed in English as well as the language used by the court to instruct the jury in English? (California, United States of America)
How does the Court treat a claim by a defendant that an issue raised and decided in the trial court resulted in constitutional violations? (California, United States of America)
In a motion for a new trial, is the trial court bound by the same principles as the court of appeal? (California, United States of America)
In what circumstances will the trial court appoint an interpreter for the trial of a defendant who does not speak English? (California, United States of America)
What are the "magic words" required by the trial court to determine that a defendant is competent to stand trial? (California, United States of America)
When reviewing a motion to suppress evidence, does the court have to accept the findings of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, can the appellate court substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted section 1016.5 of the California Immigration Code and how have the courts interpreted the word 'court' in that section? (California, United States of America)
When a defendant challenges on appeal a motion for a new trial on grounds of juror misconduct, does he accept the credibility determinations and findings of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.






Alexi purple


Company

  • About
  • Contact us
  • Press
  • Matters
  • Legal

    • Product

  • How it works
  • Pricing
  • Solo & small firms
  • Midsize firms
  • Large firms
  • In-house counsel

    • Resources

  • Resource hub
  • Sample memos
  • Blog
  • FAQ


    • © Copyright 2023 Alexi Inc. All rights reserved.