I know that when a term isn’t specifically defined in law (by legislative action, or relevant contract*) judges will use a standard dictionary. What do they do if a term has multiple, relevant definitions?
The question arises from a picture of a green pickup truck parked in a space marked “reserved for green vehicles”. While not obvious from the picture, it’s unlikely this is a low or zero emissions vehicle (clues in picture point to this vehicle being used for long distance travel in rural areas, including some dirt roads).
I know it’s probably private property where traffic laws don’t fully apply, but if they had to actually consider the core issue, what’s the logic/procedure they would use?
I’m inclined to think they’d favor the least restrictive definition, but that fails the ‘sanity check’ (my term for when people review a result to see if it’s rational and reasonable) I see quite often skimming over a ruling or in legal excerpts (my favorite tech site likes link to full text of rulings when reporting on a decision).
Here’s the picture if you’re interested, or just want to share it. http://i.imgur.com/wfD0Coe.jpg
*relevant contract means the dispute involves a contract which may include definitions for certain terms