Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> How Appealing

Litigation

: How Appealing

"The words we are asked to interpret were terms of art, and their meanings were fixed by judicial definition and consistent usage. To ignore this evidence would be to turn the plain meaning rule on its head."

"The words we are asked to interpret were terms of art, and their meanings were fixed by judicial definition and consistent usage. To ignore this evidence would be to turn the plain meaning rule on its head." Those words were written by Chief Judge Edith H. Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in an en banc concurring opinion in which Circuit Judges Jerry E. Smith and Priscilla R. Owen and Senior Circuit Judge Thomas M. Reavley joined.

The issue that divided the en banc Fifth Circuit 9-7 in an opinion issued yesterday concerns the "plain meaning" of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 -- specifically, whether the purpose of the statute is to protect competition and, therefore, only those practices that will likely affect competition adversely violate the Act. Although that issue may be rather obscure, the opinions are quite interesting because they discuss, at length, when the so-called "plain meaning" rule of statutory construction should or should not apply.

Full post as published by How Appealing on December 16, 2009 (boomark / email).