« Indiana Law - Cities battle adult stores in courts | Main | Environment - Mandatory septic system inspections »
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Law - Statutory interpretation and legislative intent
A story today in the Chicago Tribune is headlined "Judge hit for ruling on abuse: 2 legislators say law misapplied." Some quotes:
In an unusual courtroom clash that could affect the rights of sex-abuse victims statewide, two legislators have filed sworn statements contending that a Cook County judge misinterpreted the intent of a law they sponsored last year.While some courts and legal experts have questioned the value of such affidavits, the lawmakers hope to undo a ruling they say blunts a legislative victory for victims of childhood sexual abuse.
The new law, passed in July 2003 in the wake of the Boston clergy sex scandal, gave childhood abuse victims until age 28--another eight years--or in some cases longer, to file lawsuits against their alleged abusers.
But Judge Diane Larsen ruled in August that the law does not apply to accusers who turned 20 before the new law was passed because their time to file a suit had run out under the previous statute.
In a hearing Tuesday, an attorney will ask Larsen to reconsider that ruling, based in part on affidavits from state Sen. Jacqueline Collins (D-Chicago) and state Rep. James Brosnahan (D-Evergreen Park).
The legislators said the law was intended to lengthen the time period for all accusers, except those who have settled their cases or whose claims have been dismissed by a judge. * * *
[T]heir attorney, Jeanine Stevens of Chicago, argues the lawmakers' affidavits show the new law should apply to her clients. The law's language says it applies to "actions pending" when it passed and "actions commenced" afterward, she said.
In practice, courts interpreting a statute typically give little, if any, weight to a lawmaker's affidavit because it may reflect only his or her personal view, said Elizabeth Garrett, law professor at the University of Southern California.
"There's no way to determine if the majority of the people who voted for the law understood it that way," Garrett said.
In Larsen's ruling, she interpreted the law by looking to a transcript from the House floor in which Brosnahan said, "The intent [of the law] is not to revive causes of action that have already expired."
Lawyers for Brouillette, the Congregation of Christian Brothers religious order and the Archdiocese of Chicago, argue that Larsen ruled correctly.
"I'm going to object to people writing affidavits after the judge has already ruled," said Patrick Reardon, attorney for Brouillette. "I've never seen anything like it."
Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 19, 2004 07:49 AM
Posted to General Law Related