Darryl Calvin v. State of Indiana
Indiana Supreme Court
1DissentMassa, J.
Absurd results don’t always trigger the absurdity doctrine. The Court’s opinion explains why that is wise. As it notes with respect to separation of powers, “ ‘the serious judicial act of declaring certain matters beyond the reach of the political branches’ ” should almost always be avoided. Supra at *6 (quoting John F. Manning, The Absurdity Doctrine, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 2387,2476(2003)).
But in my judgment, we need not invoke the doctrine here to avoid an outcome that is, if not absurd, at least “peculiar,” as the Court mildly puts it. Supra at *7. It is hard to believe that our legislators…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Mills v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 2007
- Shelton v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1986
- Hensley v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1986
- State v. DowneyIndiana Supreme Court · 2002
- Jones v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1991
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.