{"id":16087,"date":"2018-05-15T04:02:39","date_gmt":"2018-05-15T04:02:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=16087"},"modified":"2018-09-20T19:52:40","modified_gmt":"2018-09-20T19:52:40","slug":"right-to-pursue-happiness","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=16087","title":{"rendered":"equity-of-the-statute rule – a statute should be interpreted according to the legislators’ purpose and intent, even if this interpretation goes well beyond the literal meaning of the text"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0This page is continued from Getting Started<\/a> >>>> Representing Yourself “Pro Se” or Assisting Others as a Non-Lawyer<\/a> >>>> Good Samaritan Action<\/a>:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

*******************************<\/p>\n

equity-of-the-statute rule<\/span>:<\/span><\/strong>
\n (1959)<\/span><\/p>\n

1. In statutory construction, the principle that a statute should be interpreted according to the legislators’ purpose and intent, even if this interpretation goes well beyond the literal meaning of the text; the doctrine that the supposed fair application intended for an enactment is the interpreter’s paramount concern, allowing departure from the statute’s literal words. \u00a0* \u00a0This statute-specific ally of purposivism arose in the Middle Ages, mostly fell into disuse by the Renaissance, was\u00a0<\/span>thoroughly<\/span>\u00a0rejected for most of the 19th\u00a0<\/span>century<\/span>, and has\u00a0made\u00a0spasmodic comebacks in American law since then.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/strong>[1]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

equity of statute<\/span> – the reason and spirit underlying a statute as aids to its interpretation. 50 Am J1st Stat\u00a0\u00a7 304<\/span>.<\/strong> [2]<\/span><\/p>\n

Related and Similar Doctrines:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

golden rule<\/a> <\/span>– (1) the doctrine that legal terms should be taken into context to avoid absurdity or inconsistency; or (2) an argument given to jurors to consider a litigant’s position.\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

purposivism<\/span><\/a> – texts are to be interpreted to achieve the social, economic, and political objectives that drafters had in mind.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

mischief rule<\/span> –<\/strong> (1861) In statutory construction, the doctrine that a statute should be interpreted by first identifying the problem (or \u201cmischief \u201d) that the statute was designed to remedy and then adopting a construction that will suppress the problem and advance the remedy.\u00a0 *\u00a0 This is a primarily British name for purposivism (see PURPOSIVISM).\u00a0 Under this approach, \u201cthe words of the text are expanded or contracted from their usual meaning to carry out the legislative purpose,\u201d and \u201c[tlhere is no need to first find the text ambiguous or uncertain before obtaining from other sources an understanding of the purpose of the statute<\/span>.\u201d Unif. Statute & Rule Construction Act \u00a7 18 cmt. (1995). Originally, however, the rule was to be applied only in cases of ambiguity — that is, when the literal rule was inapplicable.<\/strong>\u00a0 See Rupert Cross, Precedent in English Law 183 (1961). <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0The classic and most ancient statement of the rule occurred in Heydon\u2019s Case:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u201cFor the sure and true interpretation of all statutes in general (be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law) four things are to be discerned and considered:<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n