Agenda for 5th Class Misc Review of statutory interpretation Slide handouts Name plates Review of statutory interpretation Intro to Common Law Winterbottom v Wright

Assignment for Next Class Common Law Cases Pp. 584-90 Thomas v Winchester, Loop v Litchfield Questions for everyone to think about Pp. 587-88 WG3. Qs 1, 5 WG4. Qs 2, 6 WG1. Q3 WG2. Q4 P. 590 WG1. Qs 1, 5 WG2. Qs 2, 6 WG3. Qs 3, 7 WG4. Q4.

Statutory Interpretation 4 methods Textualism Dictionary versus ordinary meaning Meaning in other parts of statute; other statutes Canons of construction Intentionalism Legislative history Purposivism Sometimes purpose is explicit in legislative history Sometimes purpose is inferred from text or history Disregard special interest purposes Pragmatism What are real world consequences of different interpretations? But some consequences may be improper for judges to consider Good lawyers and most judges use all methods Methods are helpful in formulating good arguments Key is good arguments, not labeling arguments

Common Law Interpretation I Common law means many things Body of law established by judicial decisions Not based on statute or Constitution Most of US contract, tort, and property law “Judge made law” Opposite of civil law Common law is legal system derived from England and used in US, Canada, Australia and other former English colonies Civil law is legal system derived from France, Germany, or other continental Europeans systems in used in their colonies as well as in Japan, China, and other countries which voluntarily adopted such legal systems Opposite of equity Any judicial interpretations, even if of statute or the US Constitution “common law” of Sherman antitrust law In this course, especially in this section, focus is on first meaning of common law Class list for preferences and sign in Digital voice recorder Nameplates and marker Handouts of PowerPoint slides IP chart

Common Law Interpretation II Common law built up case by case by judges trying to do what seems both consistent with precedent and just Prior cases inevitably leave undecided questions, which judges must try to resolve Language of prior decisions not as important as language of statutes No one is a textualist when it comes to common law interpretation Policy, what seems just, is more important Although judges are not always explicit about policy or vision of justice which justifies their decisions Class list for preferences and sign in Digital voice recorder Nameplates and marker Handouts of PowerPoint slides IP chart

Common Law Interpretation III Holdings Rule of law is not always stated in case itself Even if rule of law is stated in case itself Later judges not bound by that statement of holding Later judges are free to interpret case in different way Free to construct different holding, as long as consistent with Facts and ruling in prior case Convincing policy argument Example Case 1. Facts: Loaded MAC-10 traded for drugs Decision . Violation of 924(c)(1) Rule stated in case: “trading gun for drugs violates 924(c)(1), because guns increase the danger of violence in drug transactions” Case 2. Facts. Unloaded Beretta 93R traded for drugs Could say holding of Case 1 was “trading loaded gun for drugs violated 924(c)(1),” because trading an unloaded gun does not make the drug transaction any more dangerous Implausible to say holding of Case 1 was “trading MAC-10 for drugs violated 924(c)(1),” because no policy-relevant difference between MAC-10 and Beretta 93R Class list for preferences and sign in Digital voice recorder Nameplates and marker Handouts of PowerPoint slides IP chart

Common Law Interpretation Question on Winterbottom