Also known as: ambiguities · ambiguous
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An uncertainty of meaning or intention in a word, phrase, or provision appearing in a legal document or statement.
During custodial interrogation Alexis Archer stated that maybe she should talk to a lawyer. The officers continued questioning without stopping because the statement did not clearly request counsel. Archer later moved to suppress her responses on the ground that questioning should have ceased.
Ariana Azizi filed a complaint against Anchor Bank alleging improper account handling but omitted dates and transaction details. The bank moved for a more definite statement before answering, pointing out that it could not reasonably prepare a response. The court ordered Azizi to file an amended complaint within fourteen days.
Alliance Holdings told Avalon Pharmaceuticals that a product component was safe while omitting known stability data that would have shown otherwise. Avalon relied on the statement and suffered losses after the component degraded. Avalon sued for nondisclosure arising from the misleading partial account.
Alfred Ashford's will left property to his children but used language that could be read either per stirpes or per capita. The court applied the applicable rule of construction favoring equal division among living descendants. Evidence of a contrary intention was absent so the rule controlled.
Arthur Abrams's will devised Blackacre but the testator had never owned land by that name. Extrinsic evidence showed the description matched Whiteacre that Abrams did own and revealed his intent to pass that parcel. The court construed the will to devise Whiteacre rather than allow the gift to fail.
Alexandra Armstrong's experts stated that a drug was capable of causing birth defects. The court examined whether that phrasing meant the drug actually caused the plaintiffs' injuries or merely could do so in some cases. The ambiguity prevented the testimony from satisfying the required showing of causation.
Two minors brought suit against Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, claiming they suffered limb reduction birth defects because their mothers had taken Bendectin, a drug prescribed for morning sickness to about 17.5 million pregnant women in the United States between 1957 and 1982. Limb reduction defects occur in fewer than one birth out of every 1000. Scientists do not know the mechanism by which any teratogen causes such defects. The plaintiffs offered testimony from three groups of experts. One group proposed to testify to a statistical link between Bendectin ingestion during pregnancy and limb reduction defects based on reanalyses of published studies that had reported no such association. A second group proposed to testify that Bendectin causes limb reduction defects in humans because it causes such defects in laboratory animals. A third group proposed to testify based on the similarity of Bendectin's chemical structure to other drugs suspected of causing birth defects. The district court granted summary judgment to Merrell Dow after excluding the plaintiffs' expert testimony. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed, and remanded for consideration under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. On remand, the Ninth Circuit examined the affidavits and prior trial testimony of the plaintiffs' experts. None of the experts had studied the effect of Bendectin on limb reduction defects before being hired to testify in this or related cases. None had published his work on Bendectin in a scientific journal. The only review their work had received was by judges and juries. Plaintiffs' epidemiological experts made vague assertions of a statistically significant relationship between Bendectin and birth defects but did not state that the relative risk exceeded two. With the exception of Dr. Palmer, the remaining experts were willing to testify only that Bendectin is capable of causing birth defects. Dr. Palmer alone was willing to testify that Bendectin did cause the limb defects in each of the children, based on his review of the plaintiffs' medical records and his conclusion that Bendectin is a teratogen.
View caseA suspect must articulate the desire for counsel clearly enough that a reasonable officer would understand the statement as a request. Vague remarks do not trigger the obligation to stop questioning although officers may seek clarification.
A party may move when a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that a responsive pleading cannot reasonably be prepared. The motion must be filed before the responsive pleading and must specify the defects and desired details.
A rule of construction applies unless evidence shows the donor had a different intention. Direct and circumstantial evidence of intent may be considered once ambiguity is established.
Extrinsic evidence may identify the intended property when the will's description matches no land the testator owned but closely matches land actually owned. The court may then construe the will to pass the intended parcel.
A party must disclose matters known to be necessary to prevent a partial or ambiguous statement from misleading the other side. Failure to disclose under those circumstances supports liability for nondisclosure.
…substitute for the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures." "Privacy" is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept which can easily be shrunken in meaning but which can also, on the other hand, easily be interpreted as a constitutional ban against many things other than searches and seizures. I…