SUPREME COURT DECISIONS; COURTS;

COURTS;

Court Cases;

You asked whether the new method of statutory interpretation under State v. Courchesne has led the court to different results than the conclusions of the justices who are adhering to the plain meaning rule.

In State v. Courchesne, the Connecticut Supreme Court (by a 5 to 2 vote) rejected the common law “plain meaning rule” for statutory interpretation, which states that when a statute’s language is plain and unambiguous, the court cannot go beyond the text to consider other sources of meaning. They adopted an approach to statutory interpretation that requires the court to consider all relevant sources of meaning (such as legislative history, legislative purpose, and the statute’s context) in addition to the statutory language without any requirement of finding ambiguity (262 Conn. 357 (2003).

Justice Zarella wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice Sullivan, rejecting the majority’s new method and stating that statutory interpretation is a question of judicial philosophy and that they would continue to adhere to the plain meaning rule.

We found 14 Connecticut Supreme Court cases since Courchesne using the new method of statutory interpretation. In 12 of these cases, Chief Justice Sullivan, Justice Zarella, or both participated and they used the plain meaning rule to reach the same conclusion as the other justices. In one other case, they concurred with Justice Vertefeuille and Judge Wollenberg to form the majority while Justices Norcott, Borden, and Palmer dissented from the court’s ruling. In each case, either Chief Justice Sullivan or Justice Zarella wrote a separate concurring opinion to concur in the result but object to the Courchesne method of statutory interpretation and express their continued adherence to the plain meaning rule.

In the 14^th case (Grondin v. Curi), neither Chief Justice Sullivan nor Justice Zarella took part in the case and the court (Justices Borden, Norcott, Katz, Palmer, and Vertefeuille) reached its conclusion unanimously.

Because Chief Justice Sullivan and Justice Zarella have concurred in the opinion in each case, it does not appear that the Courchesne opinion has had an effect on the court’s rulings yet.

LIST OF CASES

Grondin v. Curi, 262 Conn. 637 (2003)

Mandel v. Gavin, 262 Conn. 659 (2003)

W&D Acquisition v. First Union National Bank, 262 Conn. 704 (2003)

Wallingford v. Department of Public Health, 262 Conn. 758 (2003)

Travelers Insurance Co. v. Pondi-Salik, 262 Conn. 746 (2003)

Taylor v. Winsted Memorial Hospital, 262 Conn. 797 (2003)

Spears v. Garcia, 263 Conn. 22 (2003)

Doe v. Connecticut Bar Examining Committee, 263 Conn. 39 (2003)

Martinez v. Department of Public Safety, 263 Conn. 74 (2003)

Jones v. Riley, 263 Conn. 93 (2003)

Gerrity v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. , 263 Conn. 120 (2003)

Hatt v. Burlington Coat Factory (SC 16737, April 22, 2003)

West Haven v. Norback (SC 16777, April 22, 2003)

Bhinder v. Sun Company, Inc. (SC 16674, April 29, 2003)

CR: ts