A Twist on Corporations are People...

[Dylan]

Is my argument "just because?" Are you sure?

[Dylan]

You should read section 21655.5 and think about whether the CA legislature intended it to apply to corporations.

Legislative intent is considered in regulatory interpretation.

[The Dharma Bum]

The facts remain that the CA traffic code does in fact define corporations as people and does indeed say that two or more persons must occupy any vehicle in the car pool lane.

So unless legal definitions mean nothing it basically is a "just because" argument you are putting forward. What are the legal precedents that eliminate defining the CA traffic to the letter of the law in this case?

[The Dharma Bum]

[J.K. Gregg]

Do a pile of papers represent a corporation?

[Dylan]

It's just basic rules of statutory interpretation. You could use a few such canons here.

Legislative intent and avoiding an absurd result are the two most obvious.

What was the legislators intent? To lower traffic congestion. Does a certificate of incorporation drive? No. Does allowing somebody, then, to use the HOV land becuse he carries in his vehicle A certificate of incorporation reduce traffic? No.

Thus, would application of the letter of the law as drafted further legislative intent? Clearly, no.

Pretty easy. And 99.9% of judges will buy this argument.

What you're relying on is formalism, a long-since discredited form of formalism at that.

You're just wrong. I'm sorry.

[Dylan]

[The Dharma Bum]

[J.K. Gregg]

I say no.

[Dylan]

The classic 1L example is "no vehicles are allowed in the park." By a strict definition this would exclude, eg, a wheelchair or a war memorial involving an out of use tank. However one can readily argue both should be allowed in the park despite the plain language of the text because forbidding either would not further the intent behind the park regulation (presumable pedestrian safety and park cleanliness).