*1 Geffrey KLEIN, M.D. and Medicine,
College of
Petitioners,
v.
Cynthia HERNANDEZ, the Parent N.H., a
and Next Friend of
Minor, Respondent. 08-0453.
No. of Texas.
Supreme Court 7,Oct.
Argued 7,May
Decided
lоcutory appeal, and remand the case to for its appeals review. I Cynthia Hernandez sued Dr. Geffrey Medicine, Klein Baylor College al- leging malpractice during delivery daughter her at Ben Taub Hospi- General Gray, Cameron Pope, Kendall M. Phair tal. Ben a part Taub is of the Harris McClure, Trenaman, Laura Jeffrey B. M. District, County Hospital political subdi- Kurth, Wiley, Elizabeth A. Andrews & vision of the See Tex. State. Health & L.L.P., Jr., Marion Woodrow Kruse Alicia Safety 281.002(a); see also Code Tex. Firm, Freed, P.C., T. Law Kruse Houston Const, IX, art. 4. Baylor is a private, TX, Klein, Geffrey for M.D. school, non-profit medical but is also a Talaska, Robert J. Theodore G. Skar- school,” “supported medical which means bowski, Lyle Culberson, Timothy The Ta- that it with has contracts the Texas Higher P.L.L.C., TX, Firm, Houston, laska Law Coordinating Education Board and re- for Respondent. funding specifically ceives state allocated for training physicians provide who medi- Pope, Gray, Cameron Phair Kendall M. cal care at public hospitals such as Ben Kurth, L.L.P., TX, Houston, Andrews & Safety Taub. Tex. Health & Code for Baylor College Medicine. 312.002(6). Dr. Klein was a Baylor ob- gynecology stetrics and resident at Ben Justice MEDINA delivered the opinion arrangement Taub under this when he de- of the Court. daughter livered Hernandez’s statute, By may appeal claims, Responding to Hernandеz’s Bay- an order interlocutory denying a motion lor and Klein jointly filed a motion to for summary judgment based an asser- jurisdiction dismiss for lack of and a mo- tion of immunity. PRAC. Tex. Civ. Rem. tion for summary judgment, asserting they 51.014(5). The issue is here were immunity entitled to under sections physician, whether a working resident aat 312.006 and 312.007 the Texas Health public agreement under an hospital responded Code. Hernandez school, private his may medical an take motions, but also non-suited her claim interlocutory appeal under this statute. against Baylor. Despite non-suit, not, The appeals court of decided he could trial court denied motions as to both dismissing interlocutory appeal be- defendants, Baylor joined Klein in ap- physician cause the resident was not pealing the trial court’s interlocutory or- employee. 260 S.W.3d 10-11. We der. however, conclude, by statute a resi- physician private dent aat medical school The court of appeals dismissed both ap- is to be like a state employee peals. treated for court held it purposes of section when jurisdiction the un- lacked to consider the interloc- derlying litigation residency utory arises from a appeals either 51.014(a)(5) program through (a)(8) coordinated a supportеd of the Civil Practice a public hospital. school at Ac- and Remedies Id. at Code. 7-11. Section 51.014(a)(5) cordingly, we reverse the court of appeals’ an interlocutory appeal allows judgment, physician’s reinstate the inter- from the “a denial of motion for summary judgment that is based on an assertion of declined to exercise its interlocutory-appel- jurisdiction. who an late immunity individual officer See Lewis v. Funder- burk, state,” while section *3 51.014(a)(8) an interlocutory ap- though may authorizes Even jurisdiction we lack over peal grant plea from the or denial of “a the substance appeal, of an we always have jurisdiction by governmental jurisdiction a unit.” to determine whether 51.014(a)(5), Prac. court of appeals correctly applied juris- its Tex. Civ. RemCode (8). The court reasoned that it diction. Badiga Lopez, 681, lacked v. 274 S.W.3d (a)(5) (Tex.2009); jurisdiction under because Klein 682 n. 1 was Del Indep. Valle Sch. state,” (Tex. not an “officer or 808, Dist. v. Lopez, 845 S.W.2d 809 (a)(8) 1992) Baylor (citing and under because was not a Long v. Humble Oil & Ref. Co., (Tex.1964) “governmental unit.” 260 at 7-11. 380 S.W.3d S.W.2d (per 555 curiam)). The court also that Chapter concluded 312
of the Texas Health and Safety Code did immunity not confer upon Baylor either Ill 8,10. Klein. Id. at As another preliminary matter, we note the parties’ agreement here that
II Hernandez’s non-suit left no case or con interlocutory appeal, Because this is an troversy Baylor. rule, as to a general As we first consider matter of our own plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a case— jurisdiction. Interlocutory appeals are take a non-suit—at any time before all of generally appeals, final the courts of plaintiffs evidence other than rebuttal 22.225(b)(3), although Tex. Gov’t Code evidence has been introduced. Tex.R. Civ. exceptions general to this rule exist. See occurs, P. 162. When this the non-suit 22.001(a)(l)-(2), (c), (d); Tex. Gov’t Code typically moots the case or controvеrsy see also Univ. Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. of from the filing moment of its pro Margulis, Dallas v. 11 S.W.3d 187 nouncement in open court. Univ. Tex. (Tex.2000) curiam). (per exception One is Med. Branch at Galveston v. Estate of appeals’ when court of decision conflicts Blackmon, (Tex.2006) 100 with appeals’s prior another court of deci curiam). exist, (per Exceptions such as 22.001(a)(2). sion. Tex. Gov’t Code when the defendant has asserted a claim That exception applies here court relief, for affirmative see Gen. Land Office acknowledged that regarding its decision U.S.A., Inc., State Tex. v. OXY 789 Klein conflicted with the Fourteenth Court (Tex.1990), Baylor S.W.2d 570 but Apрeals’s decision in Young Villegas, v. submits it no such had claim in the trial (Tex.App.-Houston S.W.3d [14th court. denied). 2007, pet. See 260 Dist.] S.W.3d Appellate prohibited are courts from de at 9-11 (disagreeing with the conclusion in ciding moot controversies sep because the doctor, Young Baylor that “a who was aration-of-powers prohibits advisory article similarly situated to Dr. Klein in the in opinions questions on abstract of law. case,” stant was authorized II, 1;§ Const, art. Brooks v. Nor Tex. appeal “to the denial of sum his Ass’n, (Tex. thglen 141 motion, mary judgment in which he assert 2004). Assuming the non-suit in the trial immunity ed liability”). from individual court against Baylor, ended the ease as the jurisdiction parties We also have over apparently agree, there was no live appeal because the appeals controversy court of for the court of appeals to appeals ing Baylor’s appeal, agree did not we But its decide. Baylor’s appeal because the case judgment. dismiss The court did not err in dis- moot, Baylor rather reasoned missing Baylor’s was but appeal part and that of its interlocutory appeal entitled to was not judgment accordingly affirmed. The vi- unit.” “governmental it was not because ability interlocutory of Klein’s appeal, how- (holding at 7-8 Seе 260 S.W.3d ever, dispute remains in because Hernan- does not make Health and similarly dez has not dismissed her claim unit” entitled to Baylor “governmental against him.
interlocutory appeal). therefore *4 part the of the court of asks us to declare IV it appeals’s opinion pertaining to void as right Klein asserts a to an interloc Hernandez, on the other advisory opinion. 51.014(a)(5) utory appeal under section of hand, argues appeals’s that the Practice Civil and Remedies Code. judgment is correct whether based on That provides appeal for the of an meet the Baylor’s requirements failure to order that a summary “denies motion for interloсutory appeal for an or due to the judgment that is based on an assertion of controversy absence of a live between the immunity by an individual who is an officer circumstance, parties. either the Under employee political or of the state or a Baylor’s to appeal, correct action is dismiss subdivision of the state.” Tex. Civ. Prac. which what the court of appeals is has 51.014(a)(5). here order Rem.Code done. unquestionably meets some of the statuto (1) ry requirements: the summary judg a plaintiff When is entitled to a ment motion is based on an individual’s non-suit, trial the court’s dismissal order is (2) immunity, assertion of and the trial Ap ministeriаl. Hooks v. Fourth Court of court’s order denies the motion. The re peals, 808 Be quirement in dispute concerns status case, hearing fore the motions in this movant; is, that whether this indi acknowledged trial court its understanding vidual, who is a physician resident at a this, observing of the non-suit had school, supported medical also state Baylor taken out of the case. Its subse purposes for of the statute. however, order, quent purported deny Baylor’s both and Klein’s motions. This 312.007(a) Klein contends that section of inadvertent, may have been but even if the the Texas Health Safety Code classi- trial changed Baylor’s court its mind about fies him as a state employee purposes for case, status the determination is no section, of his work at Ben Taub. The is, interlocutory appeal. basis for an That entitled Liability,” provides: “Individual even if trial we assume the court’s action unit, A supported medical and dental here to be a to comply refusal with its school, medical or dental or coordinat- dismiss, duty pro ministerial no statute ing entity agency, is a state and a right vides to an interlocutory director, trustee, officer, intern, resi- appeal under these circumstances. Man dent, fellow, member, faculty or other damus, said, we have appropriate is the associated health care professional or remedy when a trial court refuses to com unit, employee of a medical and dental ply with duty its ministerial to dismiss supported school, medical or dental after a Id. non-suit. coordinating entity is an not necessarily agree agency
While we do
with
purposes
Chapter
state
for
the court
appeals’s
reasons for dismiss-
Civil Practice
and Remedies
Code,
purposes
determining
312.006(a),
and for
Section
entitled “Limitation
liability,
any,
person
Liability,”
if
for
supported
states
medi-
person’s
cal
engaged
acts or omissions while
school
coop-
сoordinated or
education,
erative
engaged
cooper-
medical
including pa-
in the coordinated or
tient
unit, school,
public hospital,
care at a
ative activities of the
entity.
is not liable for its acts and omissions in
connection
those
except
activities
312.007(a)
Tex. Health &
the extent
up
to the maximum
added).
section,
(emphasis
Under
amount
of state government
school,
like Baylor,
medical
“is a
101.023(a),
under Section
Civil Practice
agency,”
sup-
resident of a
Code,
and Remedies
for the acts and
school,
Klein,
ported like Dr.
“is
omissions of a governmental unit of
an employeе
agency”
of a state
for two
Chapter
purposes:
obtaining indemnity under
Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
Civil Practice and Remedies
By
specific
its
reference
*5
Code,
requires
which
the state to indemni-
101.023(a),
to section
the court inferred
fy employees in certain circumstances
Legislature
the
only
intended
to limit
in
based
acts or omissions
the course
a supported
liability
medical school’s
to the
(2)
and scope
employment,
deter-
damages caps in the Texas Tort Claims
mining liability,
any,
if
for acts or omis-
Act.
(quoting
The cardinal and entities en- give is to ascertаin and effect to gaged cooperative struction or coordinated activi- intent. Leland v. Bran Legislature’s ties and services is the same as gov- 204, dal, governmental ernment for a unit intent, determining that When government.” of state guides analy Act further our Construction later, years Two the Legislature re- sis, listing a number of relevant factors pealed article 4494t and recodified it as including object sought to be obtained 312 of the Health and legislation, the circumstances under 14,1989, R.S., Code. Act of June Leg., 71st enacted, legislative history, which its was 1, ch. 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws statutory provisions on the and former 3165. The codification reorganizеd subjects, among or similar others. same original statute and retitled some of its 311.023. Tex. Gov’t Code provisions. example, For before codifica- at issue were first enact- provisions tion, article 4494t single contained a liabili- year, ed in 1987. That the Seventieth section, ty providing: Legislature amended Title 71 of the Re- Sec. 6. LIABILITY. coordinating No Statutes, pertained which vised Civil entity, unit, medical and dental or sup- health, 4494t, public by adding article ported medical or dental school engaged which related to coordinated medical and cooperative coordinated or medical or clinical May dental education. Act of education, dental clinical including pa- R.S., Leg., ch. 70th 1987 Tex. tient care and the provision perform- *6 Legislature Gen. Laws 1508-10. The con- ance of health or dental services or re- that the clinical pa- cluded education and search at public hospital, pursuant public hospitals tient care at would benefit article, Section 4 of this shall be liable to from cooperation coordination and rather any person for its acts and in omissions competition than and that cooperation connection except therewith to the ex- opportunities would еnhance educational up tent and to but not in excess of the conserving public while resources. Id. at maximum liability amount of the of the background, 1508. As further the senate government state specified as in Subsec- analysis Baylor College bill noted that of (a) tion of Section of 101.023 the Texas University Medicine and the of Texas 101, Tort Claims Act (Chapter Civil Health Science Center at Houston had Code), Practice and Remedies for the preliminarily agreed to staff the Harris acts governmental and omissions of a County Hospital expanding District’s unit of the provided state as health care facilities and coordinаte their in the Texas Tort (Chapter Claims Act efforts, education and research but that 101, Code), Civil Practice and Remedies “residents, interns, faculty and other unit, school, whether or not such a or professionals health care Baylor entity “governmental is a Medicine, institution, unit” as there- College private of in defined. A judgment not have the same level of an action or a [did] as UTHSCH, a settlement of a claim agency-owned against any such school.” Comm, unit, school, entity Senate on Health or permitted and Human Ser- thus vices, 1062, Analysis, Bill provisions S.B. 70th under the of Leg., the Texas Tort (1987). analysis R.S. Act any recited the in- Claims shall ban action involv- tent to overcome impediment by ing subject the same by matter equalizing liability, that, noting director, among trustee, claimant against any other purposes, officer, intern, resident, the bill fellow, “establishes faculty member, public or health hospitals, other associated care being the rationale unit, “(1) of such professional relationships such will enhance the school, or act or entity whose omission students, interns, education of residents claim, rise to the as if the gave person (2) attending schools]; and fellows [the governmental were care; patient enhance and any avoid claim against unit which such was as- 312.001(b); of public money.” § waste Id. provided serted Section 101.106 of 312.003-.004; §§ see also id. directors, the Texas Tort Act. All Claims (defining “public hospital”). Under this interns, trustees, officers, residents, fel- authorization, has contracted with lows, faculty, and other associated health Higher the Texas Coordinating Education professionals employees care and of the Board and funding receives state for train- unit, the medical dental ing physicians who provide medical care at school, or dental or the coordi- public hospitals. nating entity engaged so shall be to be Ben employees agen- public
deemed Taub is one such hospital, unit, school, cy, entity and said shall being part County Harris Hospital agency” be deemed to be a “state for District, District. This like all such coun- purposes Civil Practice districts, tywide a political subdivision of Code, purposes and Remedies for by the State authorized if determining liability, any, of such “provide for the establishment of a hospi- for their persons acts and omissions tal or hospital system to furnish medical engaged while in such coordinated or and hospital indigent needy aid care to units, cooperative activities persons residing in district.” schools, or entities. These districts and their 28, 1987, May Leg., R.S., Aсt of 70th ch. hospitals are “governmental pur- units” for 1509-10, 1987 Tex. Gen. Laws poses the Tort Act. Claims Tex. Civ. repealed Act of June 71st 101.001(3). Prac. Rem.Code *7 R.S., 678, 1,§ Leg., ch. 1989 Tex. Gen. Here, Baylor University the and codification, Laws After this Houston, Texas at Medical School through liability section sections became 312.006 coordinating entity a called Affiliated and 312.007 of the Texas Health and Safe- (“AMS”), Medical Services have agreed to retitled, ty and Code was “Limitation on services, provide medical care and and Liability” Liability,” and “Individual re- education, training medical Safety and research spectively. Tex. & Health Code activities at Ben Taub and other public reorganization, §§ 312.006-.007. This how- hospital and clinics facilities owned and ever, any did not affect substantive operated by County the Harris 14, 1989, Hospital Act changes. of June 71st Leg., District. The R.S., 1.001(a), § ch. Commissioner of Health 1989 Tex. Gen. approved agreement has Laws this between AMS, Baylor and regarding UT and the before, Baylor a supported As remained Safety State Board of Medical Examiners has school. medical See Tex. & Health non-profit corporation certified AMS as a (defining “supported Code organized public. to benefit school”). Under such, medical or dental As agreement, provides Baylor all obstet- Legislature Baylor has to authorized coor- rical and medical cooperate gynecological and care ser- dinate with other medical or dental provide arrange- schools and contract to vices Ben Taub. That was the medical, dental, patient or other services ment in daughter when Hernandez’s 312.006(b) reading, confirms this arrange- Section delivered, it remains the
was liability limitation on stating that “[t]he today. ment applies regardless provided by this section by directly employed Klein been Had supported medical school of whether” the Taub, governmental be a he would Ben by unit’ as defined ‘governmental “is a Act. Simi- the Tort Claims employee under 101.001, Practice and Reme- Civil Medical University of Texas larly, had the 312.006(b). Thus, a dies Code.” university pro- public a similar Branch or not need to medical school does supported be a hospital, he would Klein to vided Medical unit —like UT governmental be the Act. employee under governmental immunity; entitled to Branch —to be Instead, Klein’s services Baylor provided Safety bestows such sta- Health and Code however, distinction, This Ben Taub. to own terms. tus its Chapter no under makes difference Baylor “governmental as a which classifies in- We concludе and a “state government” unit of state Bay- 312 to treat through Chapter tended purposes, including its for certain agency” provid- entities governmental lor like other at Ben Taub. Tex. Health services & Safe- hospitals, extending ing public services at 312.006(a)-.007(a). ty §§ Code and benefits to protection the same hospi- who work at these and its residents making Baylor “state In addition chapter, sup- tals. In the words including its purposes, for certain agency” agency” ported medical school “is Taub, Chapter 312 also at Ben services supported a resident of a employee Klein a state for these makes Safety agency an of a state school “is purposes. same Tex. Health & 312.007(a). if purposes determining liability, ... for chapter provides The Code Bay- any.” medical school like that a Tex. Health of a state liable for its acts or omissions” As lor “is not provision per- complaining with the about the denial of his agency, connection summary judgment based on an of these services: motion for formance immunity, Klein was entitled assertion the maxi- up to the extent and except interlocutory appeal any like bring govern- of state mum amount of 101.023(a), employee, other state court ment Section Civil under Code, holding otherwise. appeals erred for the Practice and Remedies governmental acts and omissions unit of appeals judgment *8 Practice and Remedies Code. Civil reversed, interlocutory part, in and Klein’s
§Id. to the court for consid- appeal is remanded Contrary appeals’s read- to eration of the merits. “the “the extent” and ing, we construe liability of as referenc- maximum amount” concurring filed a Justice WILLETT Thus, a subjects. ing separate opinion. (1) liable, to except is not school WILLETT, concurring. Justice liability government of state extent of right Chapter is 312 governmen- The Court for the acts and omissiоns of resi- Baylor College Medicine extends tal unit of state Act, protection and dent-physicians maxi- the same up Tort and to the Claims employ- enjoyed by agency govern- benefits mum amount of 101.023(a) public hospitals. providing Act. services of the ees ment under Section
9 (cid:127) on Chapter secondary 312 materi- right “[0]ver-reliance is also The Court avoided, be particularly als should “by its own terms.”1 compels this answer language where a clear. If statute’s is chapter” decide “the words of Because unambiguous, the text is we must take case,2 to look imprudent it is outside this at its word and not words, into specifically by peeking those rummage legislative around minuti- surrounding pas- minutiae legislative ae.” predecessor. 312’s As sage (cid:127) a statute we ambiguous, “Unless is without con- case can be decided today’s language must follow the clear be de- history, it should sulting legislative principle statute. This has been set history. consulting legislative without cided forth in a number of Texas cases .... says the Construction The Court adopted and utilized [and] analysis”3 permits our and “guides Act many court times.”9 extra-textual fac- consideration several (cid:127) disputed “If the statute is clear and beyond Legislature’s chosen lan- tors unambiguous extrinsic aids and rules history. The guage, including lеgislative statutory construction are inappro- (“a Act, permissive language phrased ....”10 priate consider”),4 may court indeed invites (cid:127) being plain “If the statute construed is legislative to consult factors like judges unambiguous, there no need to history “whether or not the statute is con- construction, rules of it resort ambiguous on its face.”5 Several sidered inappropriate would be to do so.”11 cases, after enact- of our both before and “the unequivocal language, Faced with Act, posit ment Code Construction judge’s inquiry Today’s is at an end.”12 simpler less-manipulable principle: firmly statutory in the holding is rooted tеxt. unambiguous equals dispositive text chapter,”13 the words of the “[i]n text — (cid:127) clear, determina- “Where text is text is analysis declares the Court—and our [legislative] tive of intent.”6 there; ought end definitive to be should (cid:127) unambiguous, “If a clear and Mining legislative statute is minutiae determinative. according may its words to their intent be com- apply legislative
we
to divine
held,
meaning
monplace,
relying
common
without resort
but as we have
where the stat-
rules of construction or extrinsic
such materials is verboten
absolutely
ute itself is
clear.14
aids.”7
Interkal, Inc.,
Dallas,
RepublicBank
v.
9.
N.A.
1.
bill case is (cid:127) text, unambiguous if the its What on what about 312’s text. But face, compels X but that outcome case, snippet where a tomorrow’s shrewd the judge clashes with what considers unread), analysis (perhaps com- from a bill 17 just “a result”? and reasonable unattended), hearing (perhaps mittee (cid:127) text, unambiguous What if the on its unheard) (perhaps calls into floor debate face, but judge mandates X the be- the statute question unquestionably what that lieves result subordinates the peril in such back- requires? citing “public “private interest” inter- what ground materials even to reinforce 18 est”? already (“by the statute makes clear its My judicial requires view: deference that terms,”15 today) says own as the Court is govern read judges the laws that our lives suggests that it the statute —the words in a manner faithful to what laws those guide their everyday that Texans use to actually say. controlling, not in fact but behavior—is is said, accept That I confined role for stray challenge instead vulnerable to laws are extra-textual aids when nebulous in leg- comment entombed somewhere the susceptible varying interpretations Questions islative abound: record. in necessary gaps (per- or when to fill left intentionally) by Legislature. haps (cid:127) text, unambiguous What if the on its then, then, only even and preferably But face, X commands but a committee “cautiously,”19 proceed mindful we witness testifies Y? they such materials conflict as often as (cid:127) text, if the on unambiguous solve, What its converge, goal and that our is “to
face, create, X requires judge ambiguity.”20 but the dislikes but nоt to added) (Tex.2008) (Willett, (emphasis (quoting In re Estate S.W.3d 650 n. 5 J., Nash, 917)). concurring judgment) (quoting in the Intel Devices, Inc., Corp. v. Advanced Micro Crews, Management I in AIC v. As noted 241, 267, U.S. 124 S.Ct. 159 L.Ed.2d Scalia, supple- Justice foremost critic (2004) (Scalia, J., concurring judg- in the menting statutory legislative clear text with ment)). history, position plainly: his has stated shows, today's opinion As Court’s dis- 15. 315 S.W.3d at position required by is of the stat- text so, (as being only ute .... That it I is not 311.023(5) (the 16. Tex. Gov't Code "conse- think) improper quite unnecessary but also quences particular construction” is an- support repeated to seek in the words of a permissive other factor the Code Construction Report which, Senate Committee as far as consider, says may Act courts "whether or not — know, committee, we not even the full ambiguous the statute is considered its Senate, the full much face”). much less much less House, and much much much less the bill, signed agreed President who 311.021(3) ("it with. presumed” 17. Id. is that the Since, moreover, statute, I have not read the entire Legislature, enacting "a intended legislative history, result”). so-called and have no just and reasonable so, need or desire to do far I know the so may ("it Report statements Senate be presumed” 18. Id. that statute, contradicted elsewhere. Legislature, enacting intended Accordingly, "public аny pri- because the statute —the favored interest is over interest”). expression only sure of the will of Con- vate gress says says, what says the Court it I — *10 join judgment. Sheshunoff, in the 19. 652 & n. 4.
11 held, misleadingly23 have the “truest manifesta- As we order to hoodwink ear- —in judges nest and enable willful ones to what tion” of what lawmakers intended is reach a by decision foreclosed the text they enacted —“the literal text lawmakers itself. where the Legislature’s voted on.”21 And yield single inescapable interpre-
words (or Supplanting even supplementing) the tation, they only are not the best evidence clarity of passed by what was legisla- of intent but the exclusive evidence. “The tivе signed by branch and the executive law; it statute itself is what constitutes the branch with what an individual legislator represents Legislature’s singular alone wrote, thought, staffer testified, witness will, perilous equate it is an isolated assured, lobbyist or interest group assert- authoritative, opinion remark jurisprudential ed invites kudzu. And hold, once it takes it threatens to choke off watertight index of the collective wishes of modest, guarantee surest no-favor- legislators, may 181 individual who have ites judging: taking at its 181 different motives and reasons for vot- word. ing way they do.”22 beyond Materials the statute matter lit- Legislature passes and the Gover- tle, all, actually not аt when the statute bills, analyses, nor not bill signs and we down, itself decides the case. my Boiled laws, by are governed legislative not prudish prudent: view is less than since it long judges histories. So resort to ex- further, necessary is not to look it is neces-
ternal materials even when statutes are sary Here, not to look further24 I would clear, lobbyists keep lawmakers and will beyond not look chapter words of the peppering legislative record with their since the answer is found the words “[i]n preferred interpretation, leg- not to inform of the chapter.”25 islators enacting statutes but to influence then,
judges interpreting them. And when ensues,
litigation statutory construction statutory
devolves into excavation. The
legal scavenger begins, hunt and the often-
contradictory tidbits are unearthed and perhaps inaccurately, selectively, or
cited—
Woods,
Shreveport
20. United States v.
Grain & Eleva-
VanDevender v.
Cf.
Co.,
77, 83,
("Judicial
tor
287 U.S.
53 S.Ct.
77 L.Ed.
432-33
restraint cau
Rathbone,
(quoting
Hamilton v.
may
tions that when a case
be decided on a
414, 421,
175 U.S.
20 S.Ct.