Abstract
In recent years, the once-placid field of statutory interpretation has become the focus of intense scholarly debate. The traditional view that courts should attempt to effectuate the intentions of the drafters of a statute has been sharply criticized by two groups. Textualists contend that the plain meaning of statutes should control judicial decisions. Modernists, by contrast, argue that judges should take into account policy considerations that may not have actually influenced the legislative process.
Recommended Citation
Maltz, Earl M.
(1994)
"The Legacy of Griggs v. Duke Power Co.: A Case
Study in the Impact of a Modernist Statutory
Precedent,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1994:
No.
4, Article 2.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1994/iss4/2
COinS