{
 "@context": "https://schema.org",
 "@type": "DefinedTerm",
 "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/statutory-interpretation",
 "identifier": "kaal:entity:statutory-interpretation",
 "name": "Statutory interpretation",
 "termCode": "statutory-interpretation",
 "inDefinedTermSet": {
  "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/index.json"
 },
 "author": {
  "@type": "Person",
  "name": "Wulf A. Kaal",
  "identifier": "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0757-275X"
 },
 "dateModified": "2026-07-29",
 "canonicalForm": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/statutory-interpretation.md",
 "sha256": "429ed570a6aada42f28ce043840adefe73aa2c77c2d3fc9ede651f974cd6adc1",
 "additionalProperty": [
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "status",
   "value": "derived"
  },
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "claim_count",
   "value": 2
  },
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "work_count",
   "value": 1
  },
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "year_span",
   "value": [
    "2011",
    "2011"
   ]
  },
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "non_current_claims",
   "value": 0
  }
 ],
 "subjectOf": [
  {
   "@type": "Claim",
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-003",
   "identifier": "kaal:claim:1765901-003",
   "text": "The plaintiffs' reading that Section 10(b) covers transactions anywhere in any security of a class listed on a U.S. exchange is inconsistent with Morrison, because the opinion turns on the location of the transaction and on the holding that Section 10(b) has no extraterritorial application.",
   "abstract": "This interpretation is inconsistent with the basic thrust of the Morrison opin- ion, which focuses on the location of the transactions and the fact that Section 10(b) does not apply extraterritorially,",
   "citation": "Kaal and Painter, The Aftermath of Morrison v. National Australia Bank and Elliott Associates v. Porsche (2011). SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1765901",
   "datePublished": "2011",
   "claim_type": "failure",
   "confidence": "argued",
   "is_failure_mode": true,
   "scope_conditions": [
    "dually listed securities",
    "transactions executed on a foreign exchange"
   ],
   "source_pdf_sha256": "7b08b8a15f7d72b4eeed41be2d17c20428cb4727269077a6575c5d22e31ecdc5",
   "status": "current"
  },
  {
   "@type": "Claim",
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1765901-007",
   "identifier": "kaal:claim:1765901-007",
   "text": "The Supreme Court should have summarized its Morrison holding in language matching the opinion's logic, namely that Section 10(b) applies only to securities bought or sold in the United States; the Court's summary language instead invited confusion.",
   "abstract": "The Supreme Court should have avoided confusion by summarizing its hold- ing in language that conforms with the logic of the opinion, which clearly supports the conclusion that Section 10(b) applies only to securities bought or sold in the United States.",
   "citation": "Kaal and Painter, The Aftermath of Morrison v. National Australia Bank and Elliott Associates v. Porsche (2011). SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1765901",
   "datePublished": "2011",
   "claim_type": "design",
   "confidence": "argued",
   "is_failure_mode": false,
   "scope_conditions": [
    "judicial opinion drafting",
    "summary language of Morrison"
   ],
   "source_pdf_sha256": "7b08b8a15f7d72b4eeed41be2d17c20428cb4727269077a6575c5d22e31ecdc5",
   "status": "current"
  }
 ],
 "description": "2 claims in the published works of Wulf A. Kaal carry the concept tag 'statutory-interpretation'. Derived node: a roster, not an adjudicated definition."
}