What is the test for interpreting "ordinary meaning" in a statute?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Cortez, B291280 (Cal. App. 2019):
Principles that govern statutory construction require interpreting the language in a statute with its " 'ordinary meaning,' " and construing it "in the context of the statute as a whole and the overall statutory scheme." (People v. Rizo (2000) 22 Cal.4th 681, 685.) Under the so-called absurd consequences doctrine, "[the] language of a statute should not be given a literal meaning if doing so would result in absurd consequences" which
Page 12
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
If a statutory language does not yield a plain meaning, and the legislative history of the legislation is not to be considered in determining the meaning of the statute, can a court rely on the statute itself? (California, United States of America)
When an agency adopts a new interpretation of a statute and rejects an old interpretation of the statute? (California, United States of America)
Is section 1001.36 of the California Criminal Code a "stressed interpretation" of the law and, if so, would it be impertinent for the court to place a strained interpretation upon the statute? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the plain meaning of a statute in the context of construction? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for interpreting the meaning of the word "reasonable and common sense interpretation" in the context of the California Civil Code of Civil Procedure Act? (California, United States of America)
Does section 125.3 of the California Code of Civil Procedure apply to the construction of the statute, and if so, does the court have jurisdiction to interpret the interpretation of the law? (California, United States of America)
Does the rule against interpreting statutory language "in a manner that would render some part of the statute surplusage" support a different interpretation? (California, United States of America)
Can a defense interpreter only interpret words of the witness interpreter at trial? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted the meaning of the "motive or purpose" of the drafters of a statute? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the meaning of the California Civil Code in the context of "Liberal interpretation"? (California, United States of America)
