What is the test for a statutory construction officer to interpret the meaning of a statute?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from Rcca-Westwood v. Dep't of Pub. Health, C069836 (Cal. App. 2014):

"Where, as here, the issue presented is one of statutory construction, our fundamental task is 'to ascertain the intent of the lawmakers so as to effectuate the purpose of the statute.' [Citations.] We begin by examining the statutory language because it generally is the most reliable indicator of legislative intent. [Citation.] We give the language its usual and ordinary meaning, and 'if there is no ambiguity, then we presume the lawmakers meant what they said, and the plain meaning of the language governs.' [Citation.] If, however, the statutory language is ambiguous, 'we may resort to extrinsic sources, including the ostensible objects to be achieved and the legislative history.' [Citation.] Ultimately we choose the construction that comports most closely with the apparent intent of the lawmakers, with a view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute. [Citations.] Any interpretation that would lead to absurd consequences is to be avoided. [Citation.]" (Allen v. Sully-Miller Contracting Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 222, 227.)

Other Questions


If a statutory language does not yield a plain meaning, and the legislative history of the legislation is not to be considered in determining the meaning of the statute, can a court rely on the statute itself? (California, United States of America)
When a section of the California Civil Code provides for construction of a statute, how do courts interpret the construction of the statute? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted statutory language in the context of statutory interpretation? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for interpretation of the California Code of Civil Procedure when it comes to the interpretation of statutory interpretation? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the plain meaning of a statute in the context of construction? (California, United States of America)
When an agency adopts a new interpretation of a statute and rejects an old interpretation of the statute? (California, United States of America)
Does the rule against interpreting statutory language "in a manner that would render some part of the statute surplusage" support a different interpretation? (California, United States of America)
Does section 125.3 of the California Code of Civil Procedure apply to the construction of the statute, and if so, does the court have jurisdiction to interpret the interpretation of the law? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for assessing the meaning of the word "interpretation" in the context of a statutory interpretation? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for establishing that language is sufficient to require the construction of a statutory definition for the purpose of establishing that a section of law does not need to include the words "constant construction" in its construction? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.