Courts should attribute purpose to statutes and interpret words to serve it

Evidence

In interpreting a statute a court should: … 1. Decide what purpose ought to be attributed to the statute and to any subordinate provision of it which may be involved; and then … 2. Interpret the words of the statute immediately in question so as to carry out the purpose as best it can, making sure, however, that it (b) a meaning which would violate any established policy of clear statement. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 3499

Categorization

• recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source
• XREF: connects to: Three presumptions govern how courts attribute purpose to statutes. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 884; Statutes must be interpreted in light of their whole historical and systemic context. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1318; A statute’s purpose is qualified by the costs its legislature contemplated — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1432 (+8 more)

Broader Connections

• Judges should use consequences to guide statutory interpretation. #expands (0.85) — Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law?, 116
• Legislative history supplies evidence of an enactment’s purpose and intended meaning #expands (0.80) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2460
• Statutes serve courts as analogies and points of departure, not controlling rules #contradicts (0.75) — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 1398
• Legislative intent and statutory purpose are conceptually distinct and often conflated #qualifies (0.75) — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 293