Talk:Statutory interpretation
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Charming Betsy v. Charming Betsey Doctrine
editThere is some confusion about the correct spelling of Betsy or Betsey. Google reports thousands of results for both but the correct title for the doctrine or cannon is Betsy. Lexis-Nexis, West-Law, and Bulk.Resource.org[1] all indicate the proper caption of the case is ALEXANDER MURRAY v. The Schooner CHARMING BETSY. Only Justia lists the caption as ALEXANDER MURRAY v. The Schooner CHARMING BETSEY. A full text search of the Justia opinion find both spellings. Full text searches of Lexis-Nexis, WestLaw, and Bulk.Resource.org opinions reveal on the the Betsy spelling.
Further the Supreme Courts website includes a listing of cases, the date they were argued and the date they were decided.[2] Page 4 of this document lists:
64 Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy............................Mar. 1, 1803, Feb. 9-10,13-15, 1804..................Feb. 22, 1804
This is strong evidence that the correct spelling of the doctrine is Betsy not Betsey.
Rule of Lenity
editRule of Lenity redirects here. It's not the same though, so I'm thinking about breaking it out unless there are objections. Piratejosh85 (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Not just the courts
editIn my (European) perception, not just the courts but anybody applying (statutory) rules engages in interpretation - which actually means nothing else than "assess the meaning". Of course, courts are right by definition, while anybody else may be wrong. Rbakels (talk) 06:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
US Perspective
editThis article gives a heavily US-biased view on a topic of importance in all nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.48.202 (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a terrible, terrible article
editIt lacks any structure or order at all, is confusingly written and imbalanced, and in large part just quotes various U.S. and UK court judgments/judicial opinions.
I'm going to endeavor to clean it up and flesh it out to the best of my ability – but I invite anyone who is very familiar with the subject, or who is looking for a big research project to collaborate. I could use all the help I can get.
—§§ LegFun §§ talk §§ 15:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)