Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Demystifying Ambiguous Statutes With The Maxims Of Statutory Interpretation: A Closer Look At J.D. Tan, Llc V. Summers, Alexander Kleinberg
Demystifying Ambiguous Statutes With The Maxims Of Statutory Interpretation: A Closer Look At J.D. Tan, Llc V. Summers, Alexander Kleinberg
Seattle University Law Review
Section I begins with a brief discussion of the maxims of statutory interpretation and an explanation of how courts employ them to determine an enigmatic law's meaning. Section II provides a history of the J.D. Tan case, including a chronicle of the underlying dispute between the principal debtor, William Summers, and the assighee of the judgment holder, J.D. Tan, LLC. Section III explains why the statute at issue in J.D. Tan, RCW 6.17.020(3), was ambiguous when this case was decided, and how this statute was in need of judicial interpretation via application of the maxims of statutory interpretation. Section IV …
The Dynamic Judicial Opinion, William D. Popkin
The Dynamic Judicial Opinion, William D. Popkin
Articles by Maurer Faculty
Eskridge's article on Dynamic Statutory Interpretation advances an aggressively pragmatic theory of interpretation but has had more influence among academics than judges because of a failure to attend to the problems of writing a candid, pragmatic and dynamic judicial opinion. This article argues that, although not free from doubt, a candid judicial opinion is preferable, and discusses how to write such an opinion - suggesting that judges rely on the "intent of the statute," not legislative intent; and adopt a personal/exploratory style in presenting their views.
Statutes With Multiple Personality Disorders: The Value Of Ambiguity In Statutory Design And Interpretation, Joseph A. Grundfest, Adam C. Pritchard
Statutes With Multiple Personality Disorders: The Value Of Ambiguity In Statutory Design And Interpretation, Joseph A. Grundfest, Adam C. Pritchard
Articles
Ambiguity serves a legislative purpose. When legislators perceive a need to compromise they can, among other strategies, "obscur[e] the particular meaning of a statute, allowing different legislators to read the obscured provisions the way they wish." Legislative ambiguity reaches its peak when a statute is so elegantly crafted that it credibly supports multiple inconsistent interpretations by legislators and judges. Legislators with opposing views can then claim that they have prevailed in the legislative arena, and, as long as courts continue to issue conflicting interpretations, these competing claims of legislative victory remain credible. Formal legal doctrine, in contrast, frames legislative ambiguity …