{"id":16113,"date":"2018-05-16T17:23:20","date_gmt":"2018-05-16T17:23:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=16113"},"modified":"2018-05-16T18:27:47","modified_gmt":"2018-05-16T18:27:47","slug":"golden-rule-doctrine-argument","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=16113","title":{"rendered":"golden rule (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"},"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

golden rule<\/span>:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

1. The interpretive doctrine that words in a legal instrument should be given their ordinary sense, as understood in context, unless that would lead to some absurdity or inconsistency with the rest of the text; ORDINARY-MEANING CANON (1). \u00a0* \u00a0The term golden rule is a mostly British name for the doctrine.\u00a0<\/strong>\u2014 aka Baron Parke\u2019s Rule<\/span><\/strong><\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

2. The doctrine that a judge may look beyond the ordinary meaning and consult extratextual sources if the result dictated by the words is absurd.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

3. The doctrine that a word or phrase is presumed to bear a consistent meaning throughout a text; PRESUMPTION OF CONSISTENT USAGE. \u00a0* \u00a0The phrase golden rule has been used in so many divergent senses by so many commentators that it is often seen as being best avoided altogether.<\/strong> [1]<\/span><\/p>\n

1. A guide for jurors in their deliberations, sometimes suggested in arguments of counsel, that the jurors place themselves in the position of a litigant. Norton Bros. v Nadebok<\/em>, 92 Ill App 541, affd 190 Ill 695, 60 NE2d 843<\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

An erroneaous principle hat in assessing damages he jurors should put themselves in the injured person’s place and render such a verdict as they would wish to receive were they in his position. 22 Am J2d Damg\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7 342, 346<\/span>.<\/strong> [2]<\/span><\/p>\n

golden rule argument<\/span>:<\/span><\/strong>
\n(1934)<\/span><\/p>\n

1. A jury argument in which a lawyer asks the jurors to reach a verdict by imagining themselves or someone they care about in the place of the injured plaintiff or crime victim. \u00a0* \u00a0Because golden-rule arguments ask the jurors to become advocates for the plaintiff or victim and to ignore their obligation to exercise calm and reasonable\u00a0<\/span>judgment<\/span>,\u00a0these arguments are widely condemned and are considered improper in most states.<\/span><\/span><\/strong> [1]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

1. An argument made by attorneys to jurors that, in assessing liability (in a civil case) or guilt (in a criminal case), they should put themselves in the place of the injured party or victim and render a verdict such as they would wish to receive were they in such a position.<\/strong> \u2014 aka golden rule contention<\/strong><\/span>.\u00a0<\/em>[3]<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Excerpt from Ruper Cross\u2019s\u00a0Statutory Interpretation<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>14 (1976):<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u201c[T}he \u2018golden\u2019 rule\u2026 allows for a departure from the literal rule when the application of the\u00a0<\/span><\/span>statutory<\/span>\u00a0words in the\u00a0ordinary sense would be repugnant to or inconsistent with some other provision in the statute or even when it would lead to what the court considers to be an absurdity. \u00a0The usual consequence of applying the golden rule is that words which are int eh statute are ignored or words which are not there are read in. \u00a0the scope of the golden rule is debatable, particularly so far as the meaning of an \u2018absurdity\u2019 is concerned.<\/span>\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/strong> [4]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

References:<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Disclaimer:<\/span><\/span><\/strong> All material throughout this website is compiled in accordance with Fair Use<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]: Black’s Law Dictionary <\/a><\/span><\/strong>Deluxe<\/b><\/span><\/a><\/em> Tenth<\/b><\/span><\/a><\/em> Edition<\/b><\/span><\/a><\/em> by Henry Campbell Black, Editor in Chief Bryan A. Garner. ISBN: 978-0-314-61300-4 <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[2]: Ballantine\u2019s Law <\/a><\/span><\/strong>Dictionary\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/a><\/strong>with<\/b><\/span><\/a><\/em> Pronunciations<\/b><\/span><\/a><\/em> Third Edition<\/a>\u00a0by James A. Ballantine\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>(James Arthur 1871-1949).\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/em>Edited by William S. Anderson.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a9 1969 by THE LAWYER\u2019S CO-OPERATIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY.\u00a0 Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 68-30931<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[3]:\u00a0\u00a0Ballantine\u2019s Law Dictionary <\/a><\/span><\/strong>Legal<\/b><\/span><\/a><\/em> Assistant<\/b><\/span><\/a><\/em> Edition<\/b><\/span><\/a><\/em>
\nby Jack Ballantine\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>(James Arthur 1871-1949).\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/em>Doctored<\/span><\/a><\/strong>\u00a0<\/span><\/em>by\u00a0Jack G. Handler,\u00a0J.D.<\/a>\u00a0\u00a9 1994 Delmar by Thomson Learning.\u00a0 ISBN 0-8273-4874-6.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[4]:\u00a0Ruper Cross\u2019s\u00a0Statutory Interpretation<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>14 (1976).<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

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

Back to Good Samaritan Action<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Back to\u00a0Representing Yourself “Pro Se” or Assisting Others as a Non-Lawyer<\/a> <\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Back to Getting Started<\/a><\/span><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Home Page<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Like this website?<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Offer a contribution to Wild Willpower PAC<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n