Also known as: canons · canonical · canonically · canonist · canonists · canon law
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
A rule prescribing standards of behavior for judges. The rule requires judges to maintain the integrity and independence of the judiciary through personal conduct that avoids disrepute even when the conduct occurs outside official duties.
A rule prescribing standards of behavior for judges. The rule requires judges to maintain the integrity and independence of the judiciary through personal conduct that avoids disrepute even when the conduct occurs outside official duties.
A principle or maxim applied to resolve ambiguity in legal instruments. The principle guides courts in ascertaining the meaning of such instruments by reference to established presumptions about drafter intent.
A principle or maxim applied to resolve ambiguity in legal instruments. The principle guides courts in ascertaining the meaning of such instruments by reference to established presumptions about drafter intent.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Judge Connor Clark was observed purchasing illegal drugs and meeting regularly with known prostitutes and dealers. The state judicial commission initiated removal proceedings. The commission found that Clark's conduct violated the judicial canon requiring judges to uphold the integrity of the office, even though the behavior occurred outside the courtroom and did not affect any pending case.
1 common questions
A judge's use of illegal drugs and association with prostitutes and drug dealers brings the judicial office into disrepute. Such personal behavior violates the canon requiring judges to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary and can result in suspension or removal.
Supporting sources
Caitlin Crowley was charged by information rather than grand jury indictment. She argued that the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause incorporated the grand jury requirement against the states. The court applied the canon that no part of a constitutional amendment should be treated as superfluous and held that due process did not require grand jury indictment in state proceedings.
Joseph Hurtado was charged by an information filed in the Superior Court of Sacramento County with the murder of Jose Antonio Estuardo. The information was in the usual form and charged the crime with technical precision and in due legal language. It was filed after the defendant had been examined and committed by a magistrate, as required by the statute. The Constitution of California, adopted in 1879, provides that offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment shall be prosecuted by information, after examination and commitment by a magistrate, or by indictment. The Penal Code of the State, adopted in 1872 and in force at the time, contained provisions authorizing every person to be proceeded against criminally by indictment or by information, and specifying that an information is an accusation in writing presented by the district attorney after preliminary examination or waiver. Hurtado moved to set aside the information on the ground that it was not found or presented by a grand jury. The motion was overruled. He was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and was put upon his trial. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, and judgment was pronounced sentencing him to be hanged. From this judgment Hurtado appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of California, which affirmed it. He then sued out a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States.
View caseCatherine Carter sought to prevent her husband from testifying against her in a criminal trial. She relied on the historical rule that spouses were treated as one person under medieval jurisprudence. The court examined the ancient canons that once supported spousal disqualification and concluded that modern evidence law no longer recognized the privilege in that form.
Carlos Castillo advertised fixed fees for routine legal services. The state bar invoked professional canons that historically regulated lawyer solicitation. The court reviewed those canons and determined that blanket prohibitions on truthful advertising violated constitutional protections for commercial speech.
Christine Castro added state-law claims to a federal diversity action after the amount-in-controversy requirement was met for the original claim. The defendant argued that the supplemental jurisdiction statute should be read narrowly. The court rejected any requirement of extraordinary clarity and applied ordinary principles of statutory construction to determine the statute's reach.
Cody Callahan challenged a state abortion statute by tracing the common-law treatment of pre-quickening abortions. The court reviewed early philosophical and canon-law concepts that influenced when life was considered to begin. Those historical sources informed the constitutional analysis of state regulatory power.
2 common questions
Canons direct that a conveyance be construed against the conveyor when ambiguity exists. They also require that all words in a will be given effect if possible and that an instrument be construed to be lawful whenever feasible.
Supporting sources
Courts invoke the canon when interpreting amendments containing multiple clauses. The canon prevents reading one clause, such as due process, to render another clause, such as the grand jury requirement, meaningless.
Supporting sources
…Noonan 20-26; Quay 426-430; see also J. Noonan, Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists 18-29 (1965). : Bracton took the position that abortion by blow or poison was homicide "if the foetus be already formed and animated, and particularly if it be animated." 2 H.…