Also known as: plain-meaning · plain meaning rule · ordinary meaning rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The ordinary sense attributed to the words of a document by a reasonable reader familiar with the surrounding circumstances.
Priscilla Parks executed a will devising property to my cousin John. At execution she had a nephew named John but no cousin by that name. Extrinsic evidence of the surrounding circumstances showed the latent ambiguity. The court admitted objective facts to resolve the description but excluded direct testimony of her subjective intent that would contradict the text.
Pilar Pena created a trust leaving her estate to my son Philip but the scrivener typed Phillip. Clear and convincing evidence showed the typo and her actual intent. The court reformed the document even though the text was unambiguous on its face because the plain meaning could be corrected when mistake was proven.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Prosperity Investments required its delivery drivers to sign arbitration agreements. When a driver sued, the company invoked the Federal Arbitration Act. The court applied the plain meaning of engaged in commerce to hold that the drivers fell outside the exemption for seamen or railroad employees.
Philip Powell sold narcotics in two separate transactions minutes apart. The government charged two violations of the same statute. The court looked to the plain meaning of the penalty provision and held that each distinct sale constituted a separate offense subject to separate punishment.
Priya Prasad served briefly on a city housing committee but held no paid government post. A magazine called her a public official in an article. The court refused to stretch the plain meaning of public official to include her and applied the actual malice standard only to those who fit the ordinary definition.
The President issued a proclamation suspending entry from several countries. Challengers argued the statute limited the power to wartime emergencies. The court held that the plain meaning of the text granted broad authority without those limits and upheld the order.
Extrinsic evidence fails to create an ambiguity when it consists only of direct statements of the drafter's subjective intent that contradict the ordinary meaning of the text. Courts may consider surrounding circumstances and other objective evidence, but they will not use after-the-fact testimony to rewrite clear language.
A document that is unambiguous on its face may still be reformed if clear and convincing evidence shows a mistake of fact or law and establishes the donor's actual intention. Direct evidence contradicting plain meaning is admissible for this limited equitable purpose even though it would not create an ambiguity for construction.
The same ordinary-meaning principle governs integrated contracts, statutes, and donative documents. Courts first determine whether the text is clear on its face before deciding whether extrinsic evidence may be considered to interpret or reform it.
When extrinsic facts reveal that the ordinary meaning produces uncertainty, such as multiple people fitting a description or changed circumstances, the language is treated as ambiguous and extrinsic evidence may be used to resolve it.
…Respondent's suggestion would sweep all lawyers under the New York Times rule as officers of the court and distort the plain meaning of the "public official" category beyond all recognition. We decline to follow it. Respondent's characterization of petitioner as a public figure raises a different question. That…