The dominance of legislatures and statutory law has put an impossible burden on the courts. Guido Calabresi thinks it is time for this country seriously to consider returning to a traditional American judicial–legislative balance in which courts would enlarge the common law and would also decide when a rule of law has seen its day and should be revised.

Contrary to traditional theories of statutory interpretation, which ground statutes in the original legislative text or intent, legal scholar William Eskridge argues that statutory interpretation changes in response to new political alignments, new interpreters, and new ideologies. It does so, first of all, because it involves richer authoritative texts than does either common law or constitutional interpretation: statutes are often complex and have a detailed legislative history. Second, Congress can, and often does, rewrite statutes when it disagrees with their interpretations; and agencies and courts attend to current as well as historical congressional preferences when they interpret statutes. Third, since statutory interpretation is as much agency-centered as judgecentered and since agency executives see their creativity as more legitimate than judges see theirs, statutory interpretation in the modern regulatory state is particularly dynamic. Eskridge also considers how different normative theories of jurisprudence--liberal, legal process, and antiliberal--inform debates about statutory interpretation. He explores what theory of statutory interpretation--if any--is required by the rule of law or by democratic theory. Finally, he provides an analytical and jurisprudential history of important debates on statutory interpretation.

A practical and lively discussion of the English Law on statutes.

Originally published: 5th ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1956.

This topical book provides an insightful analysis of the increasing prominance of the statute in AustraliaoÂeÂ(tm)s inherited common law system. It examines the integration of the two sources of law, with specific reference to the operation of claims for damages under the two sources of law and the concept of the equity of the statute. The author addresses how the common law can develop in the current environment and discusses the modern relationship between legislation and judge-made law. Two interlinked themes are presented. First, as most new law is sourced from statute, an understanding of the law of obligations is incomplete without a consideration of how statute is affecting traditional legal obligations. The example of damages under the Australian Consumer Law is analysed in detail. The statutory regime has the potential to render irrelevant significant parts of the traditional law of contract, tort and equity, which traditionally have had detailed remedial schemes. This potential will be examined in the book. The second theme is an investigation of the unification of private and public law and the important role that the Equity of the Statute (via statutory interpretation and analogical reasoning) can play in this development. This book will be of particular relevance to legal practitioners, courts and anyone faced with managing legal matters in the current legal environment, for whom a deep knowledge of the interrelationship of the two sources can inform their approach to private law remedies. It will also engage researchers, legal theorists, scholars and anyone interested in the modern operation of the Australian legal system. Features oÂeo Accessible treatment of complex structure of AustraliaoÂeÂ(tm)s modern legal system oÂeo Highlights the role of statutory interpretation in the common law system oÂeo Offers guidance as to assessment of appropriate remedies Related Title Pearce & Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia, 8th ed, 2014

Priests of the Law tells the story of the first people in the history of the common law to think of themselves as legal professionals. In the middle decades of the thirteenth century, a group of justices working in the English royal courts spent a great deal of time thinking and writing about what it meant to be a person who worked in the law courts. This book examines the justices who wrote the treatise known as Bracton. Written and re-written between the 1220s and the 1260s, Bracton is considered one of the great treatises of the early common law and is still occasionally cited by judges and lawyers when they want to make the case that a particular rule goes back to the beginning of the common law. This book looks to Bracton less for what it can tell us about the law of the thirteenth century, however, than for what it can tell us about the judges who wrote it. The judges who wrote Bracton - Martin of Pattishall, William of Raleigh, and Henry of Bratton - were some of the first people to work full-time in England's royal courts, at a time when there was no recourse to an obvious model for the legal professional. They found one in an unexpected place: they sought to clothe themselves in the authority and prestige of the scholarly Roman-law tradition that was sweeping across Europe in the thirteenth century, modelling themselves on the jurists of Roman law who were teaching in European universities. In Bracton and other texts they produced, the justices of the royal courts worked hard to ensure that the nascent common-law tradition grew from Roman Law. Through their writing, this small group of people, working in the courts of an island realm, imagined themselves to be part of a broader European legal culture. They made the case that they were not merely servants of the king: they were priests of the law.