logout

Store Research

Legislative Intent Service, Inc. News & Notes

Some bill research does not include the Governor's file because at the time we researched the bill, the sitting Governor had not released his chaptered bill file. If the Governor's file is not included with this particular research, please contact our office (1-530-666-1917 or quote@legintent.com) and we will be happy to provide this file at no charge if it is available. Please Note: Governor files did not exist prior to 1943.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



NEW 2012 CASES ADDRESSING LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:  Legislative intent and history materials are utilized by successful litigation, appellate and research attorneys to address issues of interpretation, policy and understanding relating to statutory law and language. In 1601, the English court stated in the case of Willion v. Berkeley, 1 Plow 223, that “Whoever would consider an act well ought always have particular regard to the intent of it, and accordingly as the intent appears, he ought to construe the words.”  Three hundred years later, in the U.S. Supreme Court case of New York v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 (1921), Justice Holmes stated that “a page of history is worth a volume of logic.”  

Around the time that LEGISLATIVE INTENT SERVICE, INC. was founded in 1974, federal courts were reviewing legislative history materials to declare that “even the most basic general principles of statutory construction must yield to clear contrary evidence of legislative intent.”  [National R. Passenger Corp. v. National Ass’n of R. Passengers, 414 U.S. 453 (1974)]  

Over the years, LIS has developed points and authorities for federal and state court decisions on the issues related to legislative intent and history documents.  

Below, we have set forth a few of the very recent court decisions relating to legislative history and intent:

     FEDERAL:  In the case of Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland, et al. (132 S. Ct. 1327), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a case brought by a state employee against the Maryland Court of Appeals alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act’s ‘self-care” provision and held on March 20, 2012 that suits against States under the self-care provisions are barred by sovereign immunity. Part of Justice Kennedy’s opinion stated the following:  “Without widespread evidence of sex discrimination or sex stereotyping in the administration of sick leave, it is apparent that the congressional purpose in enacting the self-care provision is unrelated to these supposed wrongs.  The legislative history of the self-care provision reveals a concern for the economic burdens on the employee and the employee’s family resulting from illness-related job loss and a concern for discrimination on the basis of illness, not sex. . . .” (Id., at page 1335)

     STATE CASES:   

• California:  The California Supreme Court ruled on April 12, 2012, in the class action case of Brinker v. Superior Court [S166350], that employers do not have to ensure their employees take their meal breaks after making these breaks available.  In the court’s review of the scope of an employer’s duty to provide meal periods and the nature of that duty, the court considered legislative history documents relating to Labor Code § 512 to confirm that the “duty the Legislature intended to impose was the duty as it had existed under the IWC’s wage orders.”  
• Connecticut:  On May 1, 2012, the Appellate Court of Connecticut reviewed the case of State v. Ernesto P. [2012 WL 1398654 (Conn.App.)], relating to various criminal charges, including the charge of employing a minor in an obscene performance even though there was no evidence submitted that he distributed the obscene photographs of the victim seized.  In deciding that the term “audience” under the applicable Connecticut criminal law may consist of a single photographer of the live performance or a single person viewing photographs of the performance, the court relied on legislative history to advance the legislative purpose of prohibiting the exhibition and viewing of children engaged in sexual conduct, regardless of the number of spectators.
• Nevada:  The Nevada Supreme Court ruled on March 1, 2012 in the case of Café Moda, LLC v. Palma (272 P. 3d 137), that the term “negligence” in the section of the comparative negligence statute permitting recovery against more than one defendant was ambiguous with regard to whether liability may be apportioned between a negligent tortfeasor and an intentional tortfeasor.  The court believed that after review of the statute’s legislative history, that the most effective way to carry out the legislature’s intent was to construe the statute’s use of the word “negligence” to mean “fault.”  The court then apportioned liability and reversed the part of the district court’s judgment imposing joint and several liability against Cafe’ Moda.
• Washington:  In the case of Pacific Continental Bank v. Soundview 90, LLC (273 P.3d 1009), the Court of Appeals of Washington ruled on March 26, 2012 that a bank’s security interest did not take priority over a subcontractor’s mechanic’s lien, and in doing so, the court reviewed legislative history materials to defeat the receiver’s partial subordination assertion that the law required a court to partition a lender’s deed of trust securing exclusively construction financing and then to subordinate only a portion equal to the amount the lender wrongfully disbursed.  With the bank violating the stop notice provision, it lost its priority and the entire deed of trust was subordinated to the lien.

PRINT PAPER . . . PAUSE:  LIS provides legislative history materials in a convenient digitized format for both our custom and our store research options. We have been recognized for our green efforts leading to less paper production and we encourage our clients to minimize their own production of paper by not printing out the materials that we provide to them.  Instead, we suggest that our clients review the documents on their monitor screens and print out only those materials that will be important to the progress of their research.  

We are always ready and happy to assist our clients during business hours (1-800-666-1917) if they run into any technical issues that make printing a challenge. If you experience any printing problems when our office is closed, our website offers guidance and troubleshooting.

• Free Quotes :  Call toll-free 1-800-666-1917 or email your request and one of our attorneys will provide you with a free quote for legislative history research.

• LIS Online Store offers fast, inexpensive legislative histories.  

• Free MCLEs :  1 hr. legislative history and 1 hr. ethics.  

• Free Sample Motions for taking Judicial Notice.  Simple and Strategic

• Free Points and Authorities for states and federal legislative intent and history research

• Take our Survey for 2012 and save 25% on one custom research order!

• Referral Discount for Custom Research

• Over 60 Court Cases have cited to LIS!

• Yes, We Scan!   Read about our progress scanning millions of pages of legislative history documents in our collection.

• Working in History – Read about our historical building and work environment here at LIS.

If you received this email from a current subscriber and wish to be included in future News and Notes, you can subscribe here! There is no charge.