Canons Of Construction

Our law has gradually developed a vast body of authority pertaining to statutory interpretation.1 Some of the rules in this law are very ancient, others rather recent. Most of this authority is applicable to statutes in any field; some of it only to one field, such as criminal law or constitutional law. Nearly all of it is entirely judge made, although a few rules of interpretation appear in the general statutes of most states.2 The words "rules of statutory interpretation" are used loosely in this article to include any of the legal principles and concepts devoted to the meaning of statutes. Some of these rules are frequently referred to by the courts as canons of construction. The ostensible purpose of every rule is to clarify…show more content…
Port of Seattle v. Department of Public Service, 1 Wash.2d 102,95 P.2d
1007 (1939).
'United States ex. reI. Coy v. United States, 316 U.S. 342 (1942); Mitchell v. Mitchell, 312
Mass. 154, 43 N.E.2d 783 (1942); ct. Hunziker v. School District, 153 Kan. 102, 109 P.2d
115 (1941).
• United States v. American Trucking Assns., 310 U.S. 534, 543 (1940); People v. Knowles,
35 Cal.2d 175,217 P.2d 1 (1950), certiorari denied 340 U.S. 879 (1950); State v. Republic
County Commrs., 148 Kan. 376,82 P.2d 84 (1938); State v. Hawk, 360 Mo. 490, 228 S.W.
2d 785 (1950).
• Alexander v. Cosden Pipe Line Co., 290 U.S. 484, 496 (1934); Costanzo v. Tillinghast, 287
U.S. 341 (1932); People v. Moroney, 24 Cal.2d 638, 150 P.2d 888 (1944); State v. Moore,
154 Kan. 193,117 P.2d 598 (1941).
,. Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926); Krebs v. Thompson 387 Ill. 471, 56
N.E.2d 761 (1944); State v. Gaitskill, 133 Kan. 389, 300 Pac. 326 (1931); State v. Humble
Oil & Refining Co., 55 N.M. 395,234 P.2d 339 (1951); ct. United States v. Cardiff, 344 U.S.
174 (1952).
"Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 331 U.S. 519, 528 (1947); Mad
River Co. v. Town of Wolcott, 137 Conn. 680, 81A.2d 119 (1951); Attorney General…show more content…
Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U.S. 469 (1940); Lockhart v. State 150 Tex. Crim. Rep.
230, 200 S.W.2d 164 (1947).
,. Marlin v. Lewallen, 276 U.s. 58 (1928); In re Russell's Estate, 294 N.Y. 99, 60 N.E.2d 823
(1945); Standard Steel Works v. Crutcher-Rolfs-Cummings, Inc., 269 P.2d 402 (Kan. 1954);
Nelson v. Stull, 65 Kan. 585, 68 Pac. 617 (1902).
17People v. Moroney, 24 Cal.2d 638, 150 P.2d 888 (1944); Moody v. Edmondson, 269 P.2d
462 (Kan. 1954); Andersen v. Heltzel, 197 Ore. 23, 251 P.2d 482 (1952).
"Michigan v. Michigan Trust Co., 286 U.S. 334, 343 (1931); State v. Western Union Telegraph
Co., 12 N.J. 468, 97A.2d 480 (1953); People v. Dethloff, 283 N.Y. 309, 28 N.E.2d
850 (1940); cf. Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246,263 (1952). lOKimminau v. Common School District, 170 Kan. 124,223 P.2d 689 (1950); Antrim County
Social Welfare Board v. Lapeer County Social Welfare Board, 332 Mich. 224, 50 N.W.2d 769
(1952); United States Steel Co. v. County of Allegheny, 369 Pa. 423, 86 A.2d 838 (1952) .
.. Harris v. Commr. of Internal Revenue, 340 U.S. 106 (1950); City of Wichita v. Wyman,
158 Kan. 709, 150 P.2d 154 (1944); State v. Buck, 262 P.2d 495 (Ore.