Legal Opinion · Dissent

Artukovich v. Astendorf

California Supreme Court

Decided December 3, 1942No. L. A. 18179Published

1Dissent

EDMONDS, J.,

Dissenting. — To me, it seems anomalous that a minor, who the law declares is incapable of making a contract, is bound by a statute requiring, as a condition precedent to bringing suit against a county, that a claim be filed within a limited period. Such a conclusion, in my opinion, may be reached only by ignoring fundamental rules of statutory construction.

Statutes should be given a reasonable interpretation consistent with the dictates of justice, and courts have adhered to the rule that the Legislature’s intention will not be presumed to include harsh or absurd consequences…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Helvering v. HallockSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  2. Toucey v. New York Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  3. McDonald v. City of Spring ValleyIllinois Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Murphy v. . Village of Fort EdwardNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
  5. Russo v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1932

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API