Legislation: Surplusage

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
KijiStewart
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 6:00 pm

Legislation: Surplusage

Postby KijiStewart » Tue May 09, 2017 10:30 pm

Any of you know what Surplusage means for legislation? Specifically in the context of the Eskbridge casebook hypo in Trudeau park (no vehicles in park, but pedestrians can walk with their bike). Hypo: can someone push a strowler or ride a skateboard?

Thanks

User avatar
yyyuppp
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2016 8:52 pm

Re: Legislation: Surplusage

Postby yyyuppp » Tue May 09, 2017 11:38 pm

its basically a rule against making a part of the statute redundant or meaningless. i don't know what your hypo is. but an example might be

1. don't drive any motorized vehicle in the park

2. exceptions: tandem bicycles are ok .

rule agains surplusage: reading motorized vehicles to not mean bicycles makes #2 meaningless, so it must mean bicycles

lawlorbust
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:50 am

Re: Legislation: Surplusage

Postby lawlorbust » Wed May 10, 2017 12:03 am

yyyuppp wrote:its basically a rule against making a part of the statute redundant or meaningless. i don't know what your hypo is. but an example might be

1. don't drive any motorized vehicle in the park

2. exceptions: tandem bicycles are ok .

rule agains surplusage: reading motorized vehicles to not mean bicycles makes #2 meaningless, so it must mean bicycles


I'm with you ... but I think you might have broken a few other canons with your hypo ...

cavalier1138
Posts: 3231
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Legislation: Surplusage

Postby cavalier1138 » Wed May 10, 2017 6:22 am

lawlorbust wrote:
yyyuppp wrote:its basically a rule against making a part of the statute redundant or meaningless. i don't know what your hypo is. but an example might be

1. don't drive any motorized vehicle in the park

2. exceptions: tandem bicycles are ok .

rule agains surplusage: reading motorized vehicles to not mean bicycles makes #2 meaningless, so it must mean bicycles


I'm with you ... but I think you might have broken a few other canons with your hypo ...


Yeah, I feel like it's easier to illustrate surplusage (although I'm used to calling it anti-redundancy) with a statute that lists things. Like if the statute defines "motorized vehicle" to mean "car, truck, pickup, cart, golf cart, or any other self-propelled vehicle with at least two wheels," then the last part of the definition has to be read to refer to something other than a car, truck, pickup, cart, or golf cart (e.g. a motorcycle). Otherwise, it creates redundancy.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests