Main Content
John F. Manning, What Divides Textualists from Purposivists?, 106 COLUM. L. REV. 70 (2006)
1.2.3.3
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2849247
Karl Llewellyn, Appendix, in Remarks on … Canons About How Statutes Are to Be Construed, 3 VAND. L. REV. 395 (1949–1950)
2.1.4.1
https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2432&context=vlr
Kevin Tobia, Brian G. Slocum, Victoria Nourse, Statutory Interpretation from the Outside, COLUM. L. REV. *1–66 (forthcoming 2022)
2.1.3.3
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3786090
Matthew R. Christiansen & William N. Eskridge, Jr., Congressional Overrides of Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions, 1967-2011, 92 TEXAS L. R. 1317-1479 + Appendix (2014)
3.2.3.1
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/tlr92&i=1385
Muriel Morisey Spence, The Sleeping Giant: Textualism as a Power Struggle, 67 S. CAL. L. REV. 585 (1994)
4.2.4.1
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/scal67&i=599
Nina A. Mendelson, Change, Creation, and Unpredictability in Statutory Interpretation: Interpretive Canon Use in the Roberts Court's First Decade, 117 MICH. L. REV. 71–142 (2018)
2.2.3.2
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1892&context=mlr
Part 1: Abbe R. Gluck & Lisa Schultz Bressman, Statutory Interpretation from the Inside—An Empirical Study of Congressional Drafting, Delegation, and the Canons, 65 STANFORD L. R. 901-1025 (2013)
3.3.4.1
http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/06/Gluck_Bressman_65_Stan._L._Rev._901.pdf
Part II: Abbe R. Gluck & Lisa Schultz Bressman, Statutory Interpretation from the Inside—An Empirical Study of Congressional Drafting, Delegation, and the Canons, 66 STAN. L. REV. 725 (2014)
3.3.4.2
http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/04/66_Stan_L_Rev_725_BressmanGluck.pdf
Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans' Relief provisions – 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(1) (2013)
3.1.2
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.156
Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts [Critique by Posner]
1.1.4.3
https://wiki.harvard.edu/confluence/download/attachments/162433616/Richard%20A.%20Posner%20on%20the%20Incoherence%20of%20Antonin%20Scalia%20_%20The%20New%20Republic.pdf?api=v2
This book, and all H2O books, are Creative Commons licensed for sharing and re-use with the exception of certain excerpts. Any excerpts from the Restatements of the Law, Principles of the Law, and the Model Penal Code are copyright by The American Law Institute. Excerpts are reproduced with permission, not as part of a Creative Commons license.