Rule1. Apply the Law when it is CLEAR. Do not Interpret or CONSTRUE.
Rule2 in StatCon is IBC, interpret before you CONSTRUE. You CONSTRUE only when the
written law is not enough to give meaning and EFFECT to the INTENT of the LAW.
The RULES are simplified in the middle of this REVIEWER. Done by a Freshman, by ang aging
Freshman who shall be a Lawyer soooooon!!!
A legislature is a kind of deliberative assembly with the power to pass, amend, and
repeallaws.The law created by a legislature is called legislation or statutory law. In addition
toenacting laws, legislatures usually have exclusive authority to raise or lower taxes and adopt
thebudget and other money bills. Legislatures are known by many names, the most common
being parliament and congress, although these terms also have more specific meanings.
Legislative intent
In law, the legislative intent of the legislature in enacting legislation may sometimes be
considered by the judiciary when interpreting the law (see judicial interpretation). The judiciary
may attempt to assess legislative intent where legislation is ambiguous, or does not appear to
directly or adequately address a particular issue, or when there appears to have been a legislative
drafting error.
When a statute is clear and unambiguous, the courts have said, repeatedly, that the inquiry into
legislative intent ends at that point. It is only when a statute could be interpreted in more than
one fashion that legislative intent must be inferred from sources other than the actual text of the
Sources of legislative intent

Courts frequently look to the following sources in attempting to determine the goals and
purposes that the legislative body had in mind when it passed the law:
the text of the bill as proposed to the legislative body,
amendments to the bill that were proposed and accepted or rejected,
the record of hearings on the topic,
legislative records or journals,
speeches and floor debate made prior to the vote on the bill,
legislative subcommittee minutes, factual findings, and/or reports,
other relevant statutes which can be used to understand the definitions in the statute on
other relevant statutes which indicate the limits of the statute in question,
legislative files of the executive branch, such as the governor or president,
case law prior to the statute or following it which demonstrates the problems the
legislature was attempting to address with the bill, or
constitutional determinations (i.e. "Would Congress still have passed certain sections of a
statute 'had it known' about the constitutional invalidity of the other portions of the
legislative intent- the reason for passing the law

When the legislature defines a word used in a statute.1. ordinary. 4. It is exceedingly hard. words and phrases used in statute should be given their plain. and common usage meaning which is supported by the maximgeneraliaverbasuntgeneraliterintelligenda or what is generally spoken shall be generally understood. do not distinguish. 3. it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. powers. Literal meaning or plain rule means INTERPRETATION of the LAW. by CONSTRUCTION. It is settled that in the absence of legislative intent to define words. Every statute is understand by implication to contain all such provision as may be necessary to effectuate to its object and purpose. EJUSDEM GENERIS . LITERAL MEANING OR PLAIN MEANING RULE. This is to give effect to both the particular and general words. DURA LEX SED LEX or HOC QUIDEM PERQUAM DURUM EST. Ubilex non distinguitnecnosdistingueredebemus. . SED ITA LEX SCRIPTA EST. the word or phrase should not.You get the meaning of the law from the word per word written law. be given effect. If the statute is clear. but so the law is written. by treating the particular words as indicating the class and the general words as indicating all that is embraced in said class. It is also the same as GENERALI DICTUM GENERALITIR EST INTERPRETANDUM a general statement is understood in a general sense. 2. When the law does not distinguish. THE SAME KIND OR SPECIE. DOCTRINE OF NECESSARY IMPLICATION THIS DOCTRINE states that what is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that which is expressed. or to make effective rights. The principle is expressed in the maxim EX NECESSITATE LEGIS or from the necessity of the law. it does not usurp the courts function to interpret the laws but it merely LEGISLATES what should form part of the law itself. although not specifically named by the particular words. WORDS MUST BE SUBSERVIENT TO THE INTENT and not intent to words. including all such collateral and subsidiary consequences as may be fairly and logically inferred from its terms. be given a different meaning. ALL WORDS in a statute should if possible. but is still the law. privileges or jurisdiction which it grants. Where a statute defines a word or phrase employed therein. plain and free from ambiguity.The law maybe harsh.

restricting common rights. as well as those statutes which are strictly construed.  The enumeration of the particular and specific words is not exhaustive or is not merely by examples. QUALIFYING . creating rights and remedies. NEGATIVE. thing or object from the enumeration. is expressly limited to certain matters.  The particular and specific words constitute a class or are of the same kind. The rule must also yield to legislative intent. This rule is not absolute if it can be shown that the legislature did not intend to exclude the person. thing or consequence IMPLIES the EXCLUSION of OTHERS orWhat is expressed puts an end to that which is implied. where a Statute. 5. ExpressioUniosEstExclusioAlterius. unless the context otherwise requires. DOCTRINE OF CASUS OMISSUS (case of omission) pro omissohabendusest. A person. It is only a tool and not a mandatory rule used for ascertaining the legislative intent. exemption or savings excludes others. object or thing omitted from an enumeration must be held to have been omitted intentionally.OPPOSITE DOCTRINE. WHAT IS EXPRESSED PUTS AN END TO WHAT IS IMPLIED is known as negative-opposite doctrine or argumentum a contrario.Expressumfacitcessaretacitum. followed by a general word or phrase. what is not list down as an exception is ACCEPTED express in the maxim EXCEPTIO FIRMAT REGULAM IN CASIBUS NON EXCEPTIS. not to defeat the intent or purpose of the law. If such legislative intent is clearly indicated.  There is no indication of legislative intent to give general words or phrases a broader meaning. Application of expressiounius rule. it should be used to carry out. This auxiliary rule is used in CONSTRUCTIONof statutes granting powers. be extended to other matters. 6. the rule must give way in favor of the legislative intent. and imposing penalties and forfeitures. 8. by interpretation or CONSTRUCTION. DOCTRINE OF LAST ANTECEDENT or AD PROXIMUM ANTECEDENS FIAL RELATIO NISI IMPEDIATUR SENTENTIA or relative words refer to the nearest antecedents. the COURT may supply the omission if to do so will carry out the intent of the legislature and will not do violence to its language.the expression of 1 person. by its terms. Limitations of ejusdem generis requisites:  Statue contains an enumeration of particular and specific words.The rule of ejusdem generis is not of universal application. the express exception. it may not.These also follows that when a statute specifically lists downs the exceptions. 7.

refers to each phrase or expression to its appropriate object. L. (stah-ray duh-see-sis) n. for example. REDDENDO SINGULA SINGULIS." Evidence that a qualifying phrase is supposed to apply to all antecedents instead of only to the immediately preceding one may be found in the fact that it is separated from the antecedents by a comma. Bac. reconcile it to have a “singular meaning” to settle the issue . By rendering each his own. She sues the driver of the other auto under a theory of Negligence. STARE DECISIS [Latin. RES JUDICATA [Latin. REDDENDO SINGULA SINGULIS when two descriptions makes it impossible to reconcile. where no contrary intention appears. construction. The party asserting res judicata. n. A thing adjudged. 10. 490. Conditions.] The policy of courts to abide by or adhere to principles established by decisions in earlier cases. A jury returns a verdict that finds that the defendant was not negligent. The last antecedent rule is a doctrine of interpretation of a statute.. by which "Referential and qualifying phrases. For example. unless in cases where a construction can be made reddendosingulasingulis." the doctrine that a trial court is bound by appellate court decisions (precedents) on a legal question which is raised in the lower court. when two descriptions of property are given together in one mass. or if the context for other reason requires a deviation from the rule. do violence to the plain intent of the language. Reliance on such precedents is required of trial courts until such time as an appellate court changes the rule. 14 Ves. for the trial court cannot ignore the precedent (even when the trial judge believes it is "bad law") 11. The injured driver then files a second lawsuit alleging additional facts that would help her prove that the other driver was negligent.WORDS restrict or modify only the words or phrases to which they are immediately associated. Let the decision stand. the words should be taken DISTRIBUTIVELY to effect that each word is to be applied to the subject to which it appears by context most appropriate related and to which it is most applicable. Ab. both the next of kin and the heir cannot take. that the next of kin shall take the personal estate and the heir at law the real estate. must then show that the decision in the first lawsuit was conclusive as to the matters in the second suit. Latin for "to stand by a decision. Vide 11 East. refer solely to the last antecedent." The rule is typically bound by "common sense" and is flexible enough to avoid application that "would involve an absurdity. assume that the plaintiff in the first lawsuit asserted that she was injured in an auto accident.] A rule that a final judgment on the merits by a court having jurisdiction is conclusive between the parties to a suit as to all matters that were litigated or that could have been litigated in that suit. that is. A court would dismiss the second lawsuit under res judicata because the second lawsuit is based on the same Cause of Action (negligence) and the same injury claim. having introduced a final judgment on the merits. 513." 9. . or let each be put in its proper place..

] Words of an opinion entirely unnecessary for the decision of the case. "by the way". incidentally or collaterally. and not directly upon the question before the court or upon a point not necessarily involved in the determination of the cause. By the way. Such are not binding as precedent. or analogy or argument.12. A remark made or opinion expressed by a judge in a decision upon a cause. that is. . OBITER DICTUM[Latin. or introduced by way of illustration.