Also known as:unequivocal · unequivocally · unambiguous · clear and unambiguous
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The quality of being clear and free from ambiguity or doubt in expression, conduct, or intention.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
6
Catalog Price List Lacks Commitment
Ulysses Usher mailed a detailed catalog listing prices for industrial parts to potential buyers. When Ulric Unger replied ordering a large quantity at the listed price, Ulysses refused, claiming the catalog was only an invitation to negotiate. The court examined whether the catalog contained unequivocal language of commitment. Because the catalog merely stated suggested bargains without inviting immediate acceptance, it failed the unequivocality requirement and was held not to be an offer.
Will Reformation Requires Clear Proof
Ugo Uberti's will left his entire estate to a named charity, yet his attorney testified that Ugo had repeatedly stated an intention to divide the estate equally among three nieces. The nieces sought reformation. The court required clear and convincing evidence both that a mistake affected the document and what Ugo's true intention was. The nieces' evidence, though consistent, did not rise to the level of unequivocal proof needed to overcome the plain text.
Ulrike Ulrich executed a trust naming her brother as sole remainder beneficiary. After her death the niece produced notes showing Ulrike intended to include the niece as a co-beneficiary. The niece petitioned for reformation under the Uniform Probate Code. The court held that the notes, standing alone, did not constitute unequivocal evidence of both the mistake and the intended disposition, so reformation was denied.
Second Amendment Challenge
Umar Underwood challenged a local handgun ban as violating the Second Amendment. The District argued the ban was a permissible regulation of the manner of exercising the right. The Court examined whether the historical understanding of the right was unequivocal. Finding that the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense was clearly established at the founding, the Court struck down the ban.
District of Columbia v. Heller554 U.S. 570 (2008)
The District of Columbia generally prohibits the possession of handguns. It is a crime to carry an unregistered firearm, and the registration of handguns is prohibited. Wholly apart from that prohibition, no person may carry a handgun without a license, but the chief of police may issue licenses for one-year periods.
District of Columbia law also requires residents to keep their lawfully owned firearms unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless they are located in a place of business or are being used for lawful recreational activities.
Respondent Dick Heller is a D.C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms within the home.
The District Court dismissed respondent's complaint. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, construing his complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it about his home in that condition only when necessary for self-defense. The Court of Appeals directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for respondent.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Ursula Upton sued under the Violence Against Women Act after suffering gender-motivated violence. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing Congress lacked power under the Commerce Clause. The Court assessed whether the regulated activity had an unequivocal substantial effect on interstate commerce. Because the connection was too attenuated, the Court held the civil remedy provision exceeded congressional authority.
United States v. Morrison529 U.S. 598 (2000)
In September 1994 Christy Brzonkala enrolled as a student at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Within thirty minutes of meeting fellow students Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, both members of the varsity football team, Brzonkala alleges that the two men assaulted and repeatedly raped her. Morrison allegedly told Brzonkala after the attack that she had better not have any diseases. He later announced in a dormitory dining room that he liked to get girls drunk and made other vulgar remarks about women.
Brzonkala became severely emotionally disturbed and depressed after the incident. She sought assistance from a university psychiatrist who prescribed antidepressant medication. She stopped attending classes and withdrew from the university. In early 1995 she filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford under the university's Sexual Assault Policy. Virginia Tech conducted a hearing under its Sexual Assault Policy and a second hearing under its Abusive Conduct Policy. The first found Morrison guilty of sexual assault and suspended him for two semesters. The second hearing again found him guilty but changed the offense description to using abusive language. University officials later set aside the punishment.
In December 1995 Brzonkala sued Morrison, Crawford, and Virginia Tech in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Her complaint alleged that the attack violated 42 U.S.C. §13981, the civil remedy provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, which creates a federal cause of action for compensatory and punitive damages against persons who commit crimes of violence motivated by gender. She also asserted Title IX claims against the university.
The district court dismissed the Title IX claims for failure to state a claim. It also dismissed the §13981 claim on the ground that Congress lacked authority to enact the provision under either the Commerce Clause or Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. A divided panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed in part, but the en banc Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's conclusion that Congress lacked constitutional authority to enact §13981.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the constitutionality of the civil remedy provision.
Uptown Apparel's employee was in custody and told officers he might want a lawyer. The officers continued questioning. The employee later moved to suppress his statements. The Court held that a request for counsel must be unequivocal and specifically tied to interrogation. Because the statement was ambiguous, the officers were not required to stop, and the statements were admissible.
Dickerson v. United States530 U.S. 428 (2000)
Petitioner Dickerson was indicted for bank robbery, conspiracy to commit bank robbery, and using a firearm in the course of committing a crime of violence.
Before trial, Dickerson moved to suppress a statement he had made at a Federal Bureau of Investigation field office on the grounds that he had not received Miranda warnings before being interrogated. The District Court granted his motion to suppress, and the Government took an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
That court reversed the District Court's suppression order. It agreed that petitioner had not received Miranda warnings before making his statement but held that 18 U.S.C. § 3501 governed the admissibility of the statement. The Fourth Circuit concluded that Miranda was not a constitutional holding and that Congress could therefore have the final say on admissibility.
Two years after Miranda was decided, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. § 3501, which provides that a confession shall be admissible in evidence if it is voluntarily given and directs the trial judge to consider specified factors in determining voluntariness. Because of the importance of the questions raised by the Court of Appeals' decision, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
How does unequivocality affect reformation of donative documents?
Reformation requires clear and convincing evidence of both a mistake and the donor's true intention. Direct evidence contradicting the plain text may be considered, but the evidence must be sufficiently unequivocal to overcome the presumption favoring the written terms. Courts therefore demand a high degree of certainty before altering an unambiguous instrument.
When is a request for counsel considered unequivocal under Miranda?
A Fifth Amendment request must be unambiguous and specifically related to custodial interrogation. Ambiguous statements such as "I might want a lawyer" do not trigger the right to counsel. Officers may continue questioning until the suspect makes a clear invocation.
What role does unequivocality play in proving abandonment of a servitude?
Abandonment requires unequivocal evidence that the beneficiary intended to extinguish the servitude permanently. Mere nonuse, even for a long period, is seldom enough. Affirmative acts or statements inconsistent with continued existence of the servitude are normally required.
384 U.S. 436 (1966)
…be observed. At the outset, if a person in custody is to be subjected to interrogation, he must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent. For those unaware of the privilege, the warning is needed simply to make them aware of it—the threshold requirement for an intelligent decision…