Want to learn more about funny, obscure and crazy laws in the United States? Put your knowledge to work with a degree in criminal justice from Olivet Nazarene University. Search the dictionary of legal abbreviations and acronyms for acronyms and/or abbreviations that contain obscure. But there are more obscure words that even lawyers might not know. For some of you, these words are obvious – but probably because you still use them in certain situations. For others in various areas of practice, these words are completely unknown or trigger a response: "I think I learned this once I got to law school." For example, if you want to be a law-abiding citizen in many states of the Union, pay special attention to animals in your jurisdiction. In Alaska, it`s illegal to wake up a sleeping bear to take a picture, while in Arizona, you keep your donkey awake by the bathtub because it`s illegal for a donkey to sleep in one of them. Probably still appropriate from today`s perspective, it is illegal in Colorado to ride a horse while under the influence. In constitutional law, laws whose wording is ambiguous are null and void because of their vagueness. The wording of these laws is considered so vague and uncertain that a reasonable person cannot determine, based on what the law is supposed to order or prohibit. This legal ambiguity deprives a person of the obligation of due process of service and thus renders the law unconstitutional. Frogs are somewhat sacred in California because it is illegal to eat a frog that dies during a frog jumping competition.
Keep your Florida elephants at bay, because if you attach one to a parking meter in this state, you may have to pay the fee as if the elephant were a vehicle. Elephants are also not allowed to plough cotton fields in North Carolina. In Kentucky, it`s illegal to dye your ducklings blue and list them for sale unless you have more than six for sale at a time. Other crazy laws across the country include articles about whiskers and especially food. In Alabama, it is illegal to wear a fake mustache that provokes laughter in church, while whiskers are illegal in Indiana if the wearer tends to kiss other people habitually. In Wisconsin, it is illegal to serve butter substitutes in prison; in Utah, it is illegal NOT to drink milk; and don`t sleep in a South Dakota cheese shop. A generous act in Louisiana could backfire – you could be fined $500 if you send a pizza order to someone`s home without their knowledge. There are many legal words that seem opaque to "civilians," but that lawyers readily recognize and understand. Anyone who has studied law knows res ipsa loquitor, promissory estoppel and liquidated damages, right? Minnesota ducks must stay within state borders if you have them on your head. In Missouri, it`s illegal to drive an unlocked bear, and in Nevada, your camel can`t be driven on the highway. Strange laws, also called strange laws, stupid laws, meaningless laws, unusual laws, useless laws, legal curiosities or legal curiosities, are laws perceived as useless, humorous or outdated, that is, are no longer applicable (compared to current culture or modern law).
A number of books and websites claim to list stupid laws. In many cases, these are based on misunderstandings, exaggerations or outright inventions.  In March 2013, the Law Commission (England and Wales), charged with abolishing obsolete and unnecessary laws reforming the legal system, published a non-paper answering some frequently asked questions about the veracity of certain so-called "legal curiosities" or "legal curiosities".  A patent ambiguity is an ambiguity that appears on the front of a document or writing because uncertain or unclear language has been used. An application for demurrage is functionally the same as an application for dismissal for failure to file a claim; Unlike a motion, however, demurrage is his own way of litigating. In California, a defendant can also file a criminal complaint if the alleged facts do not constitute a crime. There are two categories of ambiguity: latent and patent. Latent ambiguity occurs when the language used is clear and intelligible, so that it suggests meaning, but an extrinsic fact or evidence creates a need for interpretation or a choice between two or more possible meanings. In a classic case, Raffles v. Wichelhaus, 159 Eng.
Rep. 375 (ex 1864), a contract was concluded for the sale of 125 bales of cotton to arrive on a ship called Peerless, from Bombay, India. Unbeknownst to the Contracting Parties, two ships of the same name must arrive from the same port in different months of the same year. This extraneous fact required the interpretation of an otherwise clear and precise contractual term. In such cases, extrinsic or parol evidence may be admitted to explain what was meant or to identify the assets mentioned in the letter. We often use the generic word "subpoena" to refer to any order to appear in court, although there are technically two different types. The summons of these tecum requires the addressee to present tangible evidence to the court. A summons ad testificandum orders the recipient to testify orally. Some jurisdictions continue to make this distinction, but others refer to the two orders only as "subpoenas". The Supreme Court subsequently struck down this prohibition of disproportionate sentencing in Harmelin v.
Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991), but stated in dicta that in extreme cases, a disproportionate sentence could violate the Eighth Amendment. This view was subsequently expressed in Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003), which states that an approximate requirement of proportionality is available only in "extremely rare" and "extreme" cases. Sometimes courts decide the meaning of ambiguous language based on who was responsible or to blame for the ambiguity. If only one party knew or should have known the ambiguity, the subjective knowledge of the unsuspecting party will prevail over the meaning. If both parties knew or should have been aware of the uncertainty, the tribunal will consider the subjective understanding of both parties. Ambiguity no longer exists when the parties agree on its meaning.
If the parties do not agree and the ambiguous provisions are essential, no contract is concluded without mutual consent. Courts often interpret an ambiguous contractual clause against the interests of the party who prepared the contract and created the ambiguity. This is common for membership contracts and insurance contracts. The author of a document should not profit from it at the expense of an innocent party because the author was negligent in drafting the agreement. Ambiguity means that language has more than one meaning in an agreement. Cases such as this one from New York explain that ambiguity in the context of a contract is defined as "if a reasonably intelligent person who objectively examines the contract can interpret the language in more than one way." When a contract is ambiguous, courts may use external evidence to determine the parties` original intention to understand the meaning of the language in a contract. When language can be understood by a reasonable person in more than one way, there is ambiguity. It is not the use of particular words or ordinary words used in a particular sense. Words are ambiguous when their meaning is not clear to people with competent knowledge and the ability to understand them. In Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976), the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment could be violated because of factors related to the placement of a prisoner. A prison guard`s deliberate indifference to an inmate`s illness or serious injury would constitute cruel and unusual punishment that would violate the Eighth Amendment. In contract law, ambiguity means more than language with more than one meaning in which reasonable people might be different. This means that after a court has applied rules of interpretation such as clear meaning, course of business, history of performance or rules of commercial use with unclear terms, it still cannot say with certainty what meaning the parties intended. In this case, the court will admit as evidence extraneous evidence of prior or simultaneous agreements to determine the meaning of the ambiguous language. Parol proofs can be used to explain the meaning of a letter, as long as its use does not change the terms of the writing. In the absence of such evidence, the court may hear evidence of the subjective intent or subjective understanding of the parties in order to clarify the ambiguity. Some supposedly strange laws do not exist, no longer exist, or have never been passed, while others are in force, although they are often exaggerated or distorted in popular culture. Sometimes similar laws, such as prohibition to die (usually in some buildings and local areas), exist in some real places, but in other places are just urban legends. Some authors confuse the circumstances in which an accused was convicted under a more general law, such as a noise order or disorderly conduct, with the text of the law itself.
Others may fabricate a purported law as a copyright trap. Ambiguity can be patented or latent. This Texas case explains that patent ambiguity occurs when the language in the document itself has more than one meaning, while latent ambiguity is not easily visible, but occurs when language that is unique is applied to the object it is dealing with, and ambiguity occurs due to certain external circumstances.