If a statute uses the term "or", what does this imply about the listed items?

When a statute uses the term "or," it indicates that at least one of the listed items or conditions must be satisfied for the statute to apply. This disjunctive term allows for multiple possibilities, meaning that the presence of any one of the conditions is sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute.

For example, when a statute states that a person may be convicted if they meet condition A or condition B, it means that fulfilling either condition A or condition B will lead to a conviction—there is no need to satisfy both conditions, just one is necessary. This flexibility is crucial in legal contexts, as it expands the scope of compliance and allows for various scenarios to fulfill the legal criteria established by the statute.

The other options suggest interpretations that do not align with the standard legal meaning of "or." The idea that all items must be satisfied contradicts the very nature of the disjunctive, while asserting that none of the items are required does not align with the intent of establishing any legal criterion. Similarly, stating that all items are equally important misinterprets the flexibility that comes with using "or," which prioritizes the meeting of any one condition over all.