Literal Approach and Development of Other Approaches

No doubt we adopt the approach that helps us interpreting the provisions of a statute. Any approach is a valid approach till it results in a reasonable interpretation that reflects the intent of legislature.However, there is a common feeling that plain meaning and literal approach are same. However, the following does not suggest so. I am quoting from the case the citation of which is given at the end of the post..[Blogger]General Confusion about Adoption of Particular Approach
There is an apparent confusion regarding the ordinary meaning, plain meaning and literal rules of construction and the contextual, pragmatic and purposive approaches: [see generally R. Sullivan, Driedger on the Construction of Statutes, 3rd ed., (Toronto: Butterworths, 1994) (hereinafter Sullivan) and P.-A. Côté, Interpretation of Legislation in Canada, 2nd ed. (Cowansville, Que.: Les Éditions Yvon Blais, 1991).]

The history of the plain meaning rule is canvassed by Sullivan (at pages 1-6). Originally, the phrases plain meaning rule, ordinary meaning rule and literal construction rule were essentially interchangeable. The process of interpretation invoked by these rules was, first, to determine the literal meaning of the words used, and then, only if ambiguity remained, resolve the ambiguity by reference to elements such as the mischief the provision was intended to address. This two-pronged approach has gone by the wayside as it is formalistic, technical and narrow. This conclusion is addressed by Sullivan, at page 4, who quotes one of our own judges, Rouleau J. in ECG Canada Ltd. v. Canada, reflex, [1987] 2 F.C. 415 (T.D.), at page 423:

What is Ordinary Meaning

There is no question that the literal approach is a well established one in statutory interpretation. Nevertheless, it is always open to the Court to look to the object or purpose of a statute, not for the purpose of changing what was said by Parliament, but in order to understand and determine what was said. The object of a statute and its factual setting are always relevant considerations and are not to be taken into account only in cases of doubt.
The "ordinary meaning" rule, as defined by Sullivan, simply suggests that the ordinary meaning of words as generally understood provides the best evidence of what meaning Parliament intended to convey. The ordinary meaning is that gleaned on first impression from the words in their immediate context, that is in the context of the provision in which they appear. Under this approach, if there is no reason to reject it the ordinary meaning will be applied. However, the purpose and scheme of the Act, the consequences of the proposed meaning, and any other source that may point to the legislators' intent must be examined. This examination may lead the court to modify or reject the ordinary meaning if an alternative plausible interpretation exists. Where there is no reason to reject the ordinary meaning, or where there is no plausible alternative meaning, the court must apply the ordinary meaning: Sullivan, at pages 26-28, referring to the reasons of Cory J. in Thomson v. Canada (Deputy Minister of Agriculture) , 1992 CanLII 121 (S.C.C.), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 385.

Advent of Harminisation and context
The above conclusion is reflected in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and of this Court. In Hills v. Canada (Attorney General),1988 CanLII 67 (S.C.C.), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 513, an unemployment insurance case, Madam Justice L'Heureux-Dubé speaking for the majority endorsed the contextual approach. At page 549 [quoting Driedger, E. A. Construction of Statutes, 2nd ed., at page 87] she stated:
Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament. MacGuigan J.A. addressed the proper approach to statutory interpretation in the context of taxation in Lor-Wes Contracting Ltd. v. The Queen, reflex, [1986] 1 F.C. 346, and determined in the oft-quoted passage, at page 352 that 
"[t]he only principle of interpretation now recognized is a words-in-total-context approach with a view to determining the object and spirit of the taxing provisions." In an unemployment insurance decision rendered shortly after Lor-Wes , Canada (Attorney General) v. Tucker, reflex, [1986] 2 F.C. 329 (C.A.), at page 340, MacGuigan J.A. writing for the majority adopted the reasoning inBourne (Inspector of Taxes) v. Norwich Crematorium, Ltd., [1967] 2 All E.R. 576 (Ch. D.), at page 578:
English words derive colour from those words which surround them. Sentences are not mere collections of words to be taken out of the sentence, defined separately by reference to the dictionary or decided cases, and then put back again into the sentence with the meaning which you have assigned to them as separate words, so as to give the sentence or phrase a meaning which as a sentence or phrase it cannot bear without distortion of the English language. So, too, you cannot take a section out of the Act, interpret it in isolation from its context and then put it back into the Act with the meaning assigned
. Purposive Approach To construction
Given this discussion of the purposive approach and the plain meaning (literal) and ordinary meaning rules of statutory construction, the method of interpretation we are to follow is, in my view, self-evident. In the context of this case, the supposed "plain meaning" approach advocated by the Commission in the interpretation of subsection 13(2) really amounts to the application of the literal approach. The Commission suggests that the subsection must be construed in isolation, without examining how it works within the scheme of the Act. I agree that if that subsection is interpreted in that fashion, its meaning is plain and unambiguous. It is the last twenty weeks of insurable employment that is relevant, regardless of whether those weeks relate to the first or second employment. Adopting the literal approach would certainly simplify the interpretation of this Act. However, Parliament did not pick the simple solution when it drafted the Act, which is commonly viewed as one of the most complex: see  Petts v. The Umpire (Unemployment Insurance) , [1974] 2 F.C. 225 (C.A.), at page 233 perJackett C.J. In this case, as will be demonstrated, the "simple" solution is illogical when consideration is given to the broader context.
In applying the contextual approach to the construction of subsection 13(2), it becomes clear that the meaning of the provision is ambiguous when examined in its full context, in particular with regard to its relation to section 7. In light of the interaction between these provisions, there are two plausible interpretations of subsection 13(2).

... It is well-settled law that the words of a statute must be read in their total context and with proper regard to the purpose and intent of Parliament as expressed in the statute. It is only in cases of ambiguity, however, that a court needs to look beyond the ordinary meaning and normal construction of the words used by Parliament. [per Robertson J.A. (dissenting)]

Canada v. Cymerman, [1996] 2 F.C. 593
It appears that "literalism" has in a number of recent cases been in effect repudiated, there is even today some residue of authority for the so-called literal rule, especially in view of the force of precedents in our system. The result may sometimes be that a court, faced with a difficult problem of interpretation, is too readily attracted to the apparently simple course of relying on what is said to be the plain and ordinary meaning of particular words without giving sufficient weight to other considerations which might suggest a different meaning. An excessive emphasis on the words of a provision divorced from their context may be especially inappropriate where it is unlikely that the legislator had in contemplation the particular facts which subsequently arise before a court and where the question is whether the words of the provision ought to be applied to cover the facts. Thus, where the question arose whether a new furnace chamber and chimney tower of a crematorium ranked for an annual capital allowance, as being expenditure on "buildings and structures" in use "for the purpose of a trade which consists in the manufacture of goods or materials or the subjection of goods or materials to any process," the allowance was refused because it would be "a distortion of the English language to describe the living or the dead as goods or materials."[See Bourne v. Norwich Crematorium Ltd. [1967] 1 W.L.R. 691 at p. 695. The enactment in question was the Income Tax Act 1952, ss. 266 and 271.

Construction where Most ordinary and Natural Meaning is Not Possible

A word or phrase may have more than one meaning. This is the sense in which the word "ambiguity" is generally used.

However, the word "ambiguity" itself, perhaps ironically enough, is not without its own difficulty. Frequently, in the context of statutory interpretation, the word "ambiguity" is used in a more general sense. It is applied, not only to situations in which a word has more than one meaning, but to any situation in which the intention of Parliament with respect to the scope of a particular statutory situation is, for whatever reason, doubtful.

As the authors of the third edition of Cross on Statutory Interpretation states about ambiguity:

"In the context of statutory interpretation the word most frequently used to indicate the doubt which a judge must entertain before he can search for, and if possible, apply a secondary meaning is 'ambiguity'. In ordinary language this term is often confined to situations in which the same word is capable of meaning h o different things; but in relation to statutory interpretation, judicial usage sanctions the application of the word 'ambiguity' to describe any kind of doubtful meaning of words, phrases, or longer statutory provision." [R. Cross, Statutory Interpretation Yd Ed. London: Butterworths, 1995, at 83-84.]

A similar broad approach to the concept of "ambiguity" is reflected in a judgment of Justice O'Connor in 1906, when it was stated said:

"It has been contended in this case that an ambiguity must appear on the face of a statute before you can apply the rules of interpretation relating to ambiguities. In one sense that is correct, and in another sense it is not. You will frequently find an Act of Parliament perfectly clear on the face of it, and it is only when you apply it to the subject matter that the ambiguity appears. That ambiguity arises frequently from the use of general words. And wherever general words are used in a statute there is always a liability to find a difficulty in applying general words to the particular case. It is often doubtful whether the legislature used the words in the general unrestricted sense, or in a restricted sense with reference to some particular subject matter.'[ Bowtell v Goldsborough Mort 6 Co Limited (1906) 3 CLR 444 at 456-457.]

"A rule of law enacted by statute consists of a proposition which gives rise to legal consequences when the act or omission of some person falls within the factual outline delineated by that proposition.. . The difficulty is to determine whether Parliament intended a particular set of facts to fall within the factual outline of the proposition. That is, the difficulty is to determine the ambit of the factual outline which Parliament intended to enact."[ Kingston v Keprose Pty Limited (1987) 11 NSWLR404 at 421.]

In such cases where natural and ordinary meaning is not possible to derive the following rule may be applied that encapsulates the philosophy of keeping the object and purpose of the statute.[blogger]

"In many cases, the grammatical or literal meaning of a statutory provision will give effect to the purpose of the legislation. Consequently, it will constitute the 'ordinary meaning' to be applied. If however, the literal or grammatical meaning of a provision does not give effect to that purpose, that meaning cannot be regarded as the 'ordinary meaning' and cannot prevail.It must give way to the construction which will promote the underlying purpose or object of an Act” [Saraswati v. The Queen (1990-1919) 172 CLR 1 at 21]

Statutory Interpretation: An Introduction

What is Statutory Interpretation

Statutory interpretation is the process of interpreting and applying legislation. Some amount of interpretation is always necessary when case involves a statute. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning. But in most cases, there is some ambiguity or vagueness in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge. To find the meanings of statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose. In common law jurisdictions, the judiciary may apply rules of statutory interpretation to legislation enacted by the legislature or to delegated legislation such as administrative agency regulations.

Meaning

The judiciary interprets how legislation should apply in a particular case as no legislation unambiguously and specifically addresses all matters. Legislation may contain uncertainties for a variety of reasons:

Words are imperfect symbols to communicate intent. They are ambiguous and change in meaning over time.

Unforeseen situations are inevitable, and new technologies and cultures make application of existing laws difficult.

Uncertainties may be added to the statute in the course of enactment, such as the need for compromise or catering to special interest groups.

Therefore, the court must try to determine how a statute should be enforced. This requires statutory construction. It is a tenet of statutory construction that the legislature is supreme (assuming constitutionality) when creating law and that the court is merely an interpreter of the law. In practice, by performing the construction the court can make sweeping changes in the operation of the law.

Conflicts between sources of law

Where legislation and case law are in conflict, there is a presumption that legislation takes precedence insofar as there is any inconsistency. In the United Kingdom this principle is known as Parliamentary Sovereignty. In Australia and in the United States, the courts have consistently stated that the text of the statute is used first, and it is read as it is written, using the ordinary meaning of the words of the statute.

"[I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149(1992). Indeed,

"when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: 'judicial inquiry is complete.'"

"A fundamental rule of statutory construction requires that every part of a statute be presumed to have some effect, and not be treated as meaningless unless absolutely necessary." Raven Coal Corp. v. Absher, 153 Va. 332, 149 S.E. 541 (1929).

"In assessing statutory language, unless words have acquired a peculiar meaning, by virtue of statutory definition or judicial construction, they are to be construed in accordance with their common usage." Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 923 P.2d 783, 787-88 (Alaska 1996);

Federal jurisdictions may presume that either federal or local government authority prevails in the absence of a defined rule. In Canada, there are areas of law where provincial governments and the federal government have concurrent jurisdiction. In these cases the federal law is held to be paramount. However, in areas where the Canadian constitution is silent, the federal government does not necessarily have superior jurisdiction. Rather, an area of law that is not expressly mentioned in Canada's Constitution will have to be interpreted to fall under either the federal residual jurisdiction found in s. 91 -- known as the Peace, Order and Good Government clause -- or the provinces residual jurisdiction of "Property and Civil Rights" under s. 92(10) of the 1867 Constitution Act. This contrasts with other federal jurisdictions, notably the United States and Australia, where it is presumed that if legislation is not enacted pursuant to a specific provision of the federal Constitution, the states will have authority over the relevant matter in their respective jurisdictions.

Internal and external consistency

It is presumed that a statute will be interpreted so as to be internally consistent. A particular section of the statute shall not be divorced from the rest of the act. The ejusdem generis (Latin for "of the same kind") rule applies to resolve the problem of giving meaning to groups of words where one of the words is ambiguous or inherently unclear. The rule results that where "general words follow enumerations of particular classes or persons or things, the general words shall be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or kind as those enumerated." 49 F. Supp. 846, 859. Thus, in a statute forbidding the concealment on one's person of "pistols, revolvers, derringers, or other dangerous weapons," the term "dangerous weapons" may be construed to comprehend only dangerous weapons of the kind enumerated, i.e., firearms, or perhaps more narrowly still, handguns. Here, the term "dangerous weapons" must be given a meaning of the "same kind" as the word of established meaning.

A statute shall not be interpreted so as to be inconsistent with other statutes. Where there is an inconsistency, the judiciary will attempt to provide a harmonious interpretation.

Statements of the legislature

Legislative bodies themselves may try to influence or assist the courts in interpreting their laws by placing into the legislation itself statements to that effect. These provisions have many different names, but are typically noted as:

Findings;

Declarations, sometimes suffixed with of Policy or of Intent; or

Sense of Congress, or of either house in multi-chamber bodies.

These provisions of the bill simply give the legislature's goals and desired effects of the law, and are considered nonsubstantive and non-enforcable in and of themselves.
Go back to Rules of Interpretation

Chapter-14 Doctrine of Reading in/Down part-1

Chapter-14

Doctrine of Reading Down

DOCTRINE OF READING DOWN

It is well established principle of interpretation that ‘where the words of an Act are clear, there is no need for applying any of the principles of interpretation’ .The presumptions are to be applied in the case of ambiguity in the statute. The safer and more correct course of dealing with the question of construction is to take the words at their face value meaning without in the first place refer to cases. Where an ambiguity arises to supposed intention of the legislature, one of the statutory constructions, the court prDoofounded is the doctrine of reading down. Lord Reid in Federal Steam Navigation Co. v. Department of Trade and Industry,[1] (as also extracted by Cross -Statutory Interpretation, Butterworths' Edition, 1976 at page 43 in preposition 3) has stated thus:

"the judge may read in words which he considers to be necessarily implied by words which are already in the statute and he has a limited power to add to, alter or ignore statutory words in order to prevent a provision from being unintelligible, absurd or totally unreasonable, unworkable, or totally irreconcilable with the rest of the statute."

It is hazardous for a Court to attempt to enforce what according to it is the moral value. Before embarking on the mission of "closing the gap between the law and morality and bring about as near an approximation between the two as possible", it is necessary for the Court to understand clearly its limitations. The power of the Court to legislate is strictly limited. "Judges ought to remember that their office is jus dicere and not jus dare to interpret the law, and not to make law or give law[2]".

The golden rule of statutory construction which is repeated here for the sake of reference is that the words and phrases or sentences should be interpreted according to the intent of the legislature that passed the Act. All the provisions should be read together. If the words of the statutes are in themselves precise and unambiguous, the words, or phrases or sentences themselves alone do, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words or phrases or sentences in their natural and ordinary sense. But if any doubt arises from the terms employed by the legislature, it is always safe means of collecting the intention, to call in aid the ground and cause of making the statute, and have recourse to the preamble, which is a key to open the minds of the makers of the statute and the mischiefs which the Act intends to redress. In determining the meaning of statute the first question to ask always is: what is the natural or ordinary meaning of that word or phrase in its context. It is only when that meaning leads to some result which cannot reasonably be supposed to have been the intent of the legislature, then it is proper to look for some other possible meaning and the court cannot go further.

The courts, by its very nature, are most ill suited to undertake the task of legislating. There is no machinery for the Court to ascertain the condition of the people and their requirements and to make laws that would be most appropriate. Further two judges may think that a particular law would, be desirable to meet the requirements whereas another two judges may most profoundly differ from the conclusions arrived at by two judges[3].

---

[1] Federal Steam Navigation Co. v. Department of Trade and Industry, [1974] 2 All E.R. 97 at p. 100

[2] JIT RAM SHIV KUMAR Vs.STATE OF HARYANA, 1980 AIR 1285; 1980 SCR (3) 689

[3] ibid also See: Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc.v. State of U.P., [1908] 3 SCR p. 383 followed.

Reference to Extrinsic material permissible, reports and History

Reference to Extrinsic material permissible, reports and History For Establishing Intent

But avoiding absurd results is not the only reason why courts should be willing to look beyond the plain meaning of a statute. As one commentator noted some years ago, state legislative history is ignored because state legislatures see no need for it. (Stewart, J., dissenting) ("[S]tate statutes are often enacted with little recorded legislative history, and the bare words of a statute will often be unilluminating in interpreting legislative intent."[1]) There is growing recognition that legislators often deliberately employ vague, symbolic, and sometimes meaningless statutory language . . . in order to placate warring interests and achieve compromise, to please as many and alienate as few constituencies as possible, or to avoid difficult policy choices by postponing decision or transferring responsibility to an agency through a broad delegation.[2] ".In the case at bench, the extrinsic evidence in dispute was highly relevant to show the legislative intent underlying the statute. It follows that the trial court was not only free, but also duty bound to admit the challenged extrinsic evidence to ascertain the true intent of the Legislature and to effectuate the purpose of the law[3]. This is consistent with the approach taken by the California Supreme Court in where the court noted the absence of support for plaintiff's argument in the legislative history[4].

• The trend is growing. Statutory ambiguity is not always a necessity. More and more we see the courts resorting to extrinsic evidence of legislative history that supports a "plain meaning" interpretation of the statutes.

Intrinsic and extrinsic Aids to establish Intent

If the courts could not look at expressions of intention by Parliament, then a fortiori they should not look at such expressions by royal commissions or committees.[5] In contrast, Viscount Dilhorne took the view that it did not follow that the court could refer to Hansard just because it looked at the whole of an official report.[6]

Lord Donaldson, in the House of Lords debate on the Interpretation Bill 1980,[7] expressed concern that “looking at what was said in Parliament” would mean that there would be a real danger that the courts would give effect to the intention, not of Parliament, but of the executive.

Lord Diplock defended the role of the courts in Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd.[8] when he said:

“The constitutional function performed by courts of justice as interpreters of the written law laid down in Acts of Parliament is often described as ascertaining ‘the intention of Parliament’; but what this metaphor, though convenient, omits to take into account is that the court, when acting in its interpretative role, as well as when it is engaged in reviewing the legality of administrative action, is doing so as mediator between the state in the exercise of its legislative power and the private citizen for whom the law made by Parliament constitutes a rule binding upon him and enforceable by the executive power of the state”.

Lord Simon, in refusing to look at the legislative history, stated in Ealing LBC v Race Relations Board[9] that:

“In the absence of ‘preparatory works’ ... the courts must ascertain the legislative intention principally by examining (1) the social background; (2) a conspectus of all relevant law; (3) the long title of the statute and, where possible, the preamble; (4) the actual words used; (5) other statutory provisions which illuminate the meaning of the actual words used ... .”

The Privy Council[10],had ,reasoned at p. 51[11] :

" If one had to guess at the intention of the Legislature it,framing a Section in the words used, one would suppose that they had in mind to encourage the free disclosure of information or to protect the person making the statement from a supposed unreliability of police testimony as to alleged statements or both. In any case the reasons would apply as might be thought a fortiori to an alleged statement made by a person ultimately accused. But in truth when the meaning or words is plain it is not the duty of the Courts to busy themselves with supposed intentions. I have been long and deeply impressed with the wisdom of the rule, none believe universally adopted,at least in the Courts of law in Westminster Hall, that in construing wills and indeed statutes, and all written instruments, the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to, unless that would lead to some absurdity, or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instruments, in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified, so as to avoid that absurdity and inconsistency, but no farther.[12] To quote from the language of Tindal C.J. when delivering the opinion of the Judges[13]:.

‘The only rule for the construction of Acts of Parliament is that they should be construed according to the intent of the Parliament which passed the Act. If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves alone do in such case best declare the intention of the law-giver. But if any doubt arises from' the terms employed by the Legislature, it has always been held a safe means of collecting the intention, to call in aid the ground and cause of making the statute, and to have recourse to the preamble which according to Dyer.[14] C.J. is a key to open the minds of the makers of the Act, and the mischiefs which they are intended to redress[15].

In dealing with a contention that a statute [p1015] containing an unconstitutional provision should be construed as if the remainder stood alone, the court there said:

“This would be to mutilate the section and garble its meaning. The legislative intention must not be confounded with their power to carry that intention into effect. To refuse to give force and vitality to a provision of law is one thing, and to refuse to read it is a very different thing. It is by a mere figure of speech that we say an unconstitutional provision of a statute is "stricken out." For all the purposes of construction, it is to be regarded as part of the act. The meaning of the legislature must be gathered from all that they have said, as well from that which is ineffectual for want of power, as from that which is authorized by law.Here the excepting provision was in the statute when it was enacted, and there can be no doubt that the legislature intended that the meaning of the other provisions should be taken as restricted accordingly. Only with that restricted meaning did they receive the legislative sanction which was essential to make them part of the statute law of the State; and no other authority is competent to give them a larger application.[16]”

“the statute is made to enact what confessedly the legislature never meant. It confers upon the statute a positive operation beyond the legislative intent, and beyond what anyone can say it would have enacted in view of the illegality of the exceptions[17]”

.In the same case giving emphasis to the legislative intention it was stated as follows:

“A severability clause does not, however, conclusively resolve the issue. "[T]he determination, in the end, is reached by" asking "[w]hat was the intent of the lawmakers,[18]" and "will rarely turn on the presence or absence of such a clause.[19]"“A severability clause creates a presumption that Congress intended the valid portion of the statute to remain in force when one part is found to be invalid[20]. Carter v. Carter Coal Co[21]"

---

[1] See Eric Lane, Legislative Process and its Judicial Renderings: A Study in Contrasts, 48 U. PITT. L. REV. 639, 651 (1987). See also City of Lafayette v Louisiana Power & Light Co., 435 U.S. 389, 437 (1978)

[2] Things Judges Do: State Statutory Interpretation [foot note 41 Judith S. Kaye

[3] Pennisi v. Fish & Game (1979) 97 Cal. App. 3d 268, 275. [Emphasis added]

[4] Mercy Hospital & Medical Center v. Farmers Insurance Group of Companies[4] (1997) 15 Cal. 4 th 213, 223

[5] Ibid at 615.

[6] Ibid at 623F.

[7] 503 H.L. Debs, col 288. This was Lord Scarman’s Bill which tried to implement the Draft Clauses contained in the United Kingdom Law Commission’s Report, “The Interpretation of Statutes” (Law Com No. 21) (Scot Law Com No. 11) 1969.

[8] [1981] AC 251, at 279.

[9] [1972] AC 342, at 361.

[10] Pakala Narayana Swami v. EmperorA.I.R. 1939 P.C. 47

[11]as Quoted in: NANDINI SATPATHYvDANI (P.L.),. 1978 AIR 1025: 1978 SCR (3) 608

[12] [Lord Wensleydale in (1875) 6 HLC 613 at p. 106].

[13] in (1844) 11 CL & F 85 at page 143,

[14] (1562) 1 Plowd 353 at p. 369

[15] : Lord Halsbury LC in (1891) AC 531 at p. 542.'

[16] REHNQUIST, J., Dissenting Opinion SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 462 U.S. 919 INS v. ChadhaAPPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT[See also Frost v. Corporation Comm'n of Oklahoma, 278 U.S. 515, 525 (1929).

[17]Quoted from: REHNQUIST, J., Dissenting Opinion SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 462 U.S. 919 INS v. ChadhaAPPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT citing Spraigue v. Thompson, 118 U.S. 90, 95 (1886).

[18] Citation ommited

[19] United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 585, n. 27 (1968).

[20] Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238

[21] See also:298 U.S. 238, 312 (1936); Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Comm'n of Oklahoma, 286 U.S. 210, 235 [p1014] (1932).

Go BACK TO INTRINSIC AIDS