Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

 

imageUnited States Court of Appeals

Ninth Circuit

Church of Scientology v. US Department of Justice

612 F.2d 417, at page 425

(9th Circuit)

(1979)
——————————————————————
The use of the word

person

in those contexts appears to be similar to the use of any collective noun

The word

person

in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally

INCLUDES

in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings

See e. g.

1 U.S.C. § 1
——————————————————————
U.S. Code › Title 1 › Chapter 1 › § 1
——————————————————————
TITLE 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS
——————————————————————
1 U.S. Code § 1 – Words denoting number, gender, and so forth

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—

the words

person

and

“whoever”

INCLUDE

corporations,

companies,

associations,

firms,

partnerships,

societies,

and

joint stock companies,

as well as

individuals;
_________________________________________________
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1
_____________________________________________
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/612/417/410090/
——————————————————————
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1imageUnited States Supreme Court

Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe,

442 US 653, at page 667

(1979)
——————————————————————
“[I]n common usage, the term

person

DOES NOT INCLUDE

the sovereign,

[and] statutes employing the word

are ordinarily construed

to exclude it
_________________________________________________
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=442&invol=653
——————————————————————
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/653/case.htmlimageUnited States Supreme Court

U.S. v. United Mine Workers of America

330 U.S. 258, at page 275

67 S.Ct. 677

(1947)
——————————————————————
The Act does not define “persons

In common usage, that term

does not include

the sovereign,

and statutes employing it

will ordinarily not be construed

to do soimage
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=330&invol=258
——————————————————————
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/330/258/case.htmlimageimageimageUnited States Supreme Court

United States v. Cooper Corporation

312 U. S. 600, at page 604

(1941)
——————————————————————
Since, in common usage, the term

person

DOES NOT INCLUDE

the sovereign,

statutes employing the phrase

are ordinarily construed

to exclude itimage
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=312&invol=600
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/312/600/
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/312/600/case.htmlimageUnited States Supreme Court

US v. Fox,
United States v. Fox,
In re Fox,
52 N.Y. 530;

94 US 315, at page 321

(1876)

——————————————————————

The term

person

as here used applies to

natural persons

and also to

artificial personsbodies politic,

deriving their existence and powers from legislation — but cannot be so extended as to

INCLUDE

within its meaning

the Federal government

It would require an express definition to that effect to give it a sense thus extended

And the term

corporation

in the statute applies only to such corporations as are created under the laws of the state

It was so held by

the Court of Appeals

in

White v. Howard,

46 N.Y. 164, 165,

and its construction of the statute is conclusive upon us
_________________________________________________
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=94&invol=315
——————————————————————
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/94/315/
_________________________________________________

Advertisements