Why Intrinsic Evidence Is the Superior Use of Legislative History
Why Intrinsic Evidence Is the Superior Use of Legislative History By Chris Micheli Based on the seminal California Third District Court of Appeal decision in Kaufman & Broad v. Precision Plastering , the courts in this state have discerned between cognizable (which is subject to judicial notice) legislative history and noncognizable (which is not accepted). The key requirement under the Kaufman & Broad decision is that the legislative history be shared with the Legislature as a whole so that it can be properly viewed as the collective intent of the legislative body. As a result of this court decision, specific types of legislative history acceptable to the courts are listed, from committee and floor analyses to opinions of the Legislative Counsel and reports of the California Law Revision Commission. In light of this court decision and ...