When Statutory Construction Doctrines Collide
We are all familiar with the “plain meaning rule” of statutory construction. Under that rule, when a statute is clear and unambiguous on its face, the courts should not go beyond its plain language by using outside sources to construe its meaning. We are also all familiar with the concept of using legislative intent to assist with determining the meaning and interpretation of statutory language. When using legislative intent to interpret a statue, the court’s goal is to construe the statute consistent with the intent of the Legislature that passed the statute. Both of these doctrines have been discussed by the Nevada Supreme Court in dozens of cases dating as far back as 1865. However, until recently, the Supreme Court had not specifically addressed the interplay between the use of legislative intent and the plain meaning rule. In A.J. v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 28 (June 1, 2017), the Court took that issue head on.
To read entire article click here
The Writ – Appellate Briefs, Pages 10 & 11
July/August 2017, Vol.39, No. 7
About McDonald Carano
McDonald Carano has helped to shape the Nevada business and legal landscape for nearly 70 years. With more than 60 lawyers and government affairs professionals in our offices in Las Vegas and Reno, we are Nevada's law firm for business. We proudly represent Fortune 500 companies, financial and governmental institutions, fast-growth and mid-market companies, entrepreneurs, start-up ventures, non-profit organizations and individuals. Our attorneys deliver cross-discipline, one-stop, commercial law and government affairs counsel. Our dedication to clients, innovative thinking and practical solutions based in sound business and legal judgments are at the heart of our practice. For more information, visit mcdonaldcarano.com, call 775.788.2000 (Reno office), or 702.873.4100 (Las Vegas office) or reach us by email at email@example.com.
You have chosen to send an email to McDonald Carano. The sending or receipt of this email and the information in it does not in itself create an attorney-client relationship. If you are not already a client, you should not provide us with information that you wish to have treated as privileged or confidential without first speaking to one of our lawyers. If you provide information before we confirm that you are a client and that we are willing and able to represent you, we may not be required to treat that information as privileged, confidential, or protected information, and we may be able to represent a party adverse to you.
I have read this and want to send an email.