Inseverability clauses in statutes
Article Abstract:
Courts should distinguish inseverability clauses from severability clauses in statutes and defer to the plain meaning of inseverability clauses. Inseverability clauses are not simply mirror images of severability clauses, but reflect a different dynamic. They are often included in a statute as a result of legislative compromises that should be preserved by the courts. Instead, courts have tended to analyze inseverability and severability clauses in the same way. The proposed canon of interpretation for inseverability clauses is based on the public choice theory of statutory interpretation.
Publication Name: University of Chicago Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0041-9494
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
The shrunken docket of the Rehnquist Court
Article Abstract:
Comparison of the cases heard by the US Supreme Court in 1983-1985 and 1993-1995 reveals that changes in personnel and their understanding of the Supreme Court's role may be why the Court's docket has declined markedly. Changes in the political composition of lower courts and changes in the Court's jurisdiction have had only limited impact on the case load. One of the most important differences is that several justices are less willing to grant certiorari on issues that may be in conflict but do not have broad implications.
Publication Name: Supreme Court Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0081-9557
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Gustafson v. Alloyd Co.: an opinion that did not write
Article Abstract:
The US Supreme Court's interpretation of section 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 in Gustafson v. Alloyd Co. is inconsistent with the statutory language and contrary to any accepted interpretation of what constitutes a prospectus. The ruling served to limit the scope of communications that can be considered misrepresentations under section 12(2). In departing from statutory language without striking the statute, the Court has served to undermine the legal authority that attorneys and lower courts rely on.
Publication Name: Supreme Court Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0081-9557
Year: 1995
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Implied causes of action under federal statutes: the Air Carriers Access Act of 1986. Precedents construing statutes administered by federal agencies after the Chevron decision: what gives?
- Abstracts: Lender liability: evaluating risk under CERCLA and the security interest exemption. EPA's CERCLA lender liability proposal: secured creditors "hit the jackpot."
- Abstracts: Consumer lawyers innovate; new breed of suits brings results, big fees. Rent-to-own is targeted as racketeering
- Abstracts: Climate change: The final countdown. The significance of the proposed changes to the waste framework directive
- Abstracts: The effect of Community law on pre-accession tax treaties. Taxes and the World Trade Organization