December 19, 2006
Muddled Thoughts and More
I was reading through some new interpretation cases, and routinely found things like this: "When interpreting a statute that is not ambiguous, this Court will apply the plain meaning of the statute. In construing a statute, the Court must seek the intention of the Legislature, and knowing it, must adopt the interpretation which will meet the real meaning of the legislature." Garrison v. State, 2006 WL 3627752 (Miss. Dec. 14, 2006) (Citations omitted.) What the heck does that mean? I mean, if a court is trying to provide guidance to lower courts as to how to approach interpretation, how should lower Mississippi courts do so? Is it intent, plain meaning, or does plain meaning give the intent, or....
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Muddled Thoughts and More: