Top Law Schools

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

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

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 ...

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.