Drafters deliberately used flexible standards for timing but specific rules for scope.

Evidence

The concept of reasonableness, probably in the absence of the term reasonable as to time, would comprehend both, but clearly there is a distinction, and Congress knew about it, and we talked about it in the 1930’s, and Congress knew that we wanted the term “reasonable time” flexible, and that is why it is in there as to time. … When you come to what the man may do, you ought to specify what he can do and what he may not do. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 526

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reader’s law-course theme of rules vs. standards and legislative choice between flexible and determinate language. — connects to: Parties can find the same statutory language clear while reading it differently. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 531; Rules allocate decisions to the present while standards hold them open for the future — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 354; Legal rules intentionally incorporate arbitrary detail to maximize certainty and predictability. — HLA Hart, The Concept of Law (Clarendon Law…, 534
• DEFINE: Illustrates the deliberate legislative choice between case-by-case standards and bright-line rules.

Broader Connections

• Rules allocate decisions to the present while standards hold them open for the future #expands (0.85) — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 354
• Legal rules intentionally incorporate arbitrary detail to maximize certainty and predictability. #exemplifies (0.80) — HLA Hart, The Concept of Law (Clarendon Law…, 534