Section 17 Judicial Construction of Ambiguous Agency Statutes

• Library: Administrative Law 2011

When interpreting an agency statute, a reviewing court will apply rules of statutory construction only after the court finds that the statute is ambiguous or that application of a plain language construction would produce an absurd, illogical result in light of the statute’s purpose. State ex rel. Nixon v. Alternate Fuels, Inc., 181 S.W.3d 177, 181 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005); Harper v. Dir. of Revenue, 118 S.W.3d 195, 199 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003), overruled on other grounds by Akins v. Director of Revenue, 303 S.W.3d 563 (Mo. banc 2010). In general, a court will find ambiguity if the legislative intent is not ascertainable from the plain and ordinary meaning of the relevant statutory language and is open to differing, but reasonable, interpretations. Alternate Fuels, 181 S.W.3d at 181; Harper, 118 S.W.3d at 199; Dir., Mo. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Murr, 11 S.W.3d 91, 97 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000).

Because the central goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain legislative intent, the reviewing court examines the words used in the statute, the context in which the words are used, and the problem the legislature sought to remedy by enacting the statute. State ex rel. Whiteco Indus., Inc. v. Bowers, 965 S.W.2d 203, 207 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998). This may include an examination of a statute’s history, structure, surrounding circumstances, and objectives. Allright Props., Inc. v. Tax Increment Fin. Comm’n of Kansas City, 240 S.W.3d 777, 780 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007). The reviewing court may review earlier versions of the law, examine the whole act to discern the purpose of the statute, or consider the problem that the statute was enacted to remedy. In...