Georgia Law Review, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Winter 1991), pp. 365-435

Abstract

Two initial observations may be tendered concerning the canons of interpretations: The literature, almost uniformly, discredits them; the courts, almost uniformly, employ them. The purpose of this effort is to reflect some sense of background, and illustratively to marshal the Georgia experiences with what are perhaps the three most famous canons of interpretation.