Hermeneutics and Constraint in Law: Reassessing the Interpretative Limits in Dennis Patterson’s Jurisprudential Framework

Abstract

The aim of this study is to explore Dennis Patterson's understanding about Interpretation in Law and assess whether interpretation is inherently fundamental to legal practice, or merely a method employed in a situation in which there is a lack of clarity. Differently, he treats interpretation as a secondary technique and supports his view through examples of important cases such as Riggs v. Palmer and C & J Fertilizer v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co., while discussing textual, doctrinal, historical, and structural arguments. The research in hands aims to provide a qualitative and analytical study of Patterson's jurisprudence, including a comparative analysis of important interpretive principles. The study shows that, although, Patterson recognizes the importance of interpretation in understanding the meaning of a text, yet he does not see it as fundamental. Resultantly, Patterson's framework is consistent with traditional interpretive principles, therefore, his framework can only be incorporated with them and not others.