FACULTYTALK Archives

November 2013

FACULTYTALK@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Michael O'Hara <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
Date:
Wed, 20 Nov 2013 00:04:38 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (63 lines)
ALSBTALK:

Having drafted such a statute my read is or, or, or.  

While (a) and (c) are very similar they also are very different with respect to proof.  Direct scientific evidence via blood test or breath test is what (a) addresses.  The focus of (c) is via a different form of proof.  For example, (c) could use an off-duty  bartenders testimony of having witnessed the driver consume 6 beers in 50 minutes and an admitting nurse who received the driver's refusal to take the blood test that the driver's weight was 200 pounds, and the the county medical examiner testifies on the calculation of blood alcohol levels with that data.  The subsections (a) and (c) use blood level, while (b) uses observation of behavior to all three reach the same conclusion:  impaired.

Michael

Professor Michael J. O'Hara, JD., Ph.D.
Mammel Hall 228
Finance, Banking, and Law Department
College of Business Administration
University of Nebraska at Omaha
6708 Pine Street
Omaha  NE  68182
402_554_2823  voice    fax  402_554_2680 (fax is not private)
email:  [log in to unmask]
CBA homepage:  http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/mohara/web/ohara.htm

Co-Editor, The Earnings Analyst
http://www.a-r-e-a.org/journal.shtml

Book Review Editor, Economics & Business Journal
http://ecedweb.unomaha.edu/home.htm

________________________________________
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Keith A Maxwell [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 5:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Statutory Interpretation (And v. Or)

In the following criminal statute (used by a student in a presentation), there is neither a conjunctive or disjunctive used between (a) and (b), but the disjunctive is used between (b) and (c). The question is whether the statute should be read (a) AND (b) OR (c), or (a) OR (b) OR (c)? The student insists that is should be the former, but I disagree. I have always followed the canon that if not explicitly one or the other "and" is implied.

Any insights? Thanks. Keith

DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE

A person may not operate or be in actual physical control of a vehicle within
this state if:

(a) a subsequent chemical test shows that the person has a blood or breath alcohol concentration of .08 grams or greater at the time of the test;

(b) is under the influence of alcohol, any drug, or the combined influence of
alcohol and any drug to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely operating
a vehicle;

OR

(c) has a blood or breath alcohol concentration of .08 grams or greater at the
time of operation or actual physical control.

Keith A. Maxwell, J.D.
Professor Emeritus of Legal Studies and Ethics in Business
Nat S. and Marian W. Rogers Professor (Emeritus)
University of Puget Sound
Tacoma, WA
http://www2.ups.edu/faculty/maxwell/home.htm (archived)

Adjunct Professor of Business Law
Dixie State College
Saint George, UT
https://www.dixie.edu/business/maxwell.php

ATOM RSS1 RSS2