#Scrivener error definition trial#

Here is another gem from Justice Scalia in footnote 46 of the opinion: As Chief Justice Marshall explained nearly two centuries ago, 'f … the plain meaning of a provision, not contradicted by any other provision in the same instrument, is to be disregarded, because we believe the framers of that instrument could not intend what they say, it must be one in which the absurdity and injustice of applying the provision to the case, would be so monstrous, that all mankind would, without hesitation, unite in rejecting the application.' For that reason, courts will only refuse to give effect to a linguistically faithful reading of a clear statute in the most extreme circumstances. Marshall:įor one thing, the interpretive maxim that permits a court to eschew a literal reading of a textually-unambiguous statute on the grounds that the literal reading produces absurd results has to be used with great caution and delicacy, lest the judiciary’s own sense of appropriate public policy outcomes usurp the powers entrusted to the elected legislative branch. What follows are a few money quotes that help to explain the very limited circumstances when a court should consider the result from a plain reading of a statute to be so absurd, that the court concluds there 'must be a scrivenor’s error' by the legislature, so that the statute 'really doesn’t say what the legislature meant to say.' Here is a quote from both the court’s opinion and from C.J. The Chancery Court creates many quotable excerpts of its own that make this opinion recommended reading for any student of government interested in the interfacing between the judicial and legislative branches of government–and statutory construction principles in general. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall and current U.S. The Chancery Court makes ample use in this case of quotes from former U.S. Although this case involved the application of statutes to determine the validity of a Codicil to a Will, the reasoning and the far-reaching statements of the proper role of the judiciary in the implementation of the public policy expressed by statute can be very useful in other cases of statutory construction.

Ch., Ap), read opinion here, the Chancery Court provides a thorough discussion of statutory construction principles and the danger of the judicial branch encroaching into the province of the legislature. Some writers have suggested that this may have changed the course of American history.In the case titled: In Re Last Will and Testament of Palecki, 2007 WL 1229498 ( Del. Over 18 minutes of the Watergate tapes were supposedly erased by Richard Nixon's secretary, Rose Mary Woods, in a claimed clerical error. In some circumstances, courts can also correct scrivener's errors found in primary legislation.

#Scrivener error definition trial#

The appellate court held that 'we must remand the case to the trial court to correct a scrivener's error.'

However, Ortiz was mistakenly adjudicated guilty of a felony for the count of marijuana possession. State of Florida, Ortiz had been convicted of possession of less than 20 g of marijuana, a misdemeanor. Ī scrivener's error can be grounds for an appellate court to remand a decision back to the trial court. For example, where the parties to a contract make an oral agreement that, when reduced to a writing, is mistranscribed, the aggrieved party is entitled to reformation so that the writing corresponds to the oral agreement. There is a considerable body of case law concerning the proper treatment of a scrivener's error.