![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
For various reason I have studied a lot of statute law. That is, I've delved deeply into various code sections of California Civil and Criminal law. There are a lot of things I was sure about after reading the statute. Especially the ones that were written in clear English.
But, it turns out, like the King of Siam, I have become uncertain of the things I was absolutely sure of.
Statutes interact with each other. No matter how carefully it is worded to minimize those interactions, each law has unintended consequences. Until a particular law has been through the courts several times, its meaning isn't really fixed.
The original statute is something interesting, but not the "real" law. It is the body of case law around a statute that counts. And it is why lawyers get paid the big bucks. They know how to unravel that tangled mess.
And worse yet, bad facts make bad law. A case can be decided on it's merits and mitigation that then becomes precedent in other cases with different mitigation.
One reason large corporations will settle lawsuits and pay large sums in cases where the corporation has done nothing wrong is to keep from becoming part of case law. A settled suit doesn't count. Only if it goes all the way to a judge's decision does it add to case law.
Corporations will often settle cases based on new law and in which they are blameless to avoid being a test case for the new law. That first decision is mightily important to the case law that follows it. Nobody wants to be left hanging on the whims and preferences of that first judge who hears the first case on a new law.
Yep. Law is even more interesting than I thought.
But, it turns out, like the King of Siam, I have become uncertain of the things I was absolutely sure of.
Statutes interact with each other. No matter how carefully it is worded to minimize those interactions, each law has unintended consequences. Until a particular law has been through the courts several times, its meaning isn't really fixed.
The original statute is something interesting, but not the "real" law. It is the body of case law around a statute that counts. And it is why lawyers get paid the big bucks. They know how to unravel that tangled mess.
And worse yet, bad facts make bad law. A case can be decided on it's merits and mitigation that then becomes precedent in other cases with different mitigation.
One reason large corporations will settle lawsuits and pay large sums in cases where the corporation has done nothing wrong is to keep from becoming part of case law. A settled suit doesn't count. Only if it goes all the way to a judge's decision does it add to case law.
Corporations will often settle cases based on new law and in which they are blameless to avoid being a test case for the new law. That first decision is mightily important to the case law that follows it. Nobody wants to be left hanging on the whims and preferences of that first judge who hears the first case on a new law.
Yep. Law is even more interesting than I thought.