| Mandatory Language of Any U.S. Law
Continental Casualty Co. v. United States, 314 U.S.527, 533 (1942) (It is well
settled that an affirmative legislative enumeration implies a denial of powers that are omitted
or not specified.)
Downey v. Crabtree, 100 F3d 662 (9th Cir. 1996) (Federal courts, rather than
administrative agencies, have responsibility to resolve issues of statutory construction.)
Watson v. Department of Justice, 64 F3d 1524 (Fed.Cir. 1995) (Law enforcement
officers are held to higher standard of conduct than are other federal employees.)
Shall:
"As used in statutes, contracts, or the like, this word is generally
imperative or mandatory. In common or ordinary parlance, and in its ordinary
signification, the term "shall" is a word of command, and one which has
always or which must be given a compulsory meaning; as denoting obligation.
The word in ordinary usage means "must" and is inconsistent with a concept
of discretion." People v. Municipal Court for Los Angeles Judicial Dist.,
149 C.A.3d 951, 197 Cal.Rptr. 204, 206.
"It has the invariable significance of excluding the idea of discretion,
and has the significance of operating to impose a duty which may be
enforced, particularly if public policy is in favor of this meaning, or when
addressed to public officials, or where a public interest is involved, or
where the public or Persons have rights which ought to be exercised or
enforced, unless a contrary intent appears." People v. O'Rourke, 124 Cal.App
752, 13 P.2d 989, 992.
NOT APPLICABLE - "But it may be construed as merely permissive or
directory (as equivalent to "may"), to carry out the legislative intention
and in cases where no right or benefit to any one depends on its being taken
in the imperative sense, and where no public or private right is impaired by
its interpretation in the other sense." Wisdom v. Board of Sup'rs of Polk
County, 236 Iowa 669 19 N.W.2d 602, 607, 608.
While a qui tam complaint is still under seal, the Department is not representing a party to the proceeding...
Page 16 - Until the Department decides to intervene in a qui tam suit, the Government has not expended any resources in the prosecution of a lawsuit... determine whether such an expenditure is appropriate.
|
|
