absurd results doctrine in Illinois

2016Hasler v. Industrial Comm’n, 97 Ill. 2d 46, 52 (1983) (holding that the purpose of the Act is to make an injured employee whole). ¶ 31 Indeed, the contrary interpretation would run afoul of the absurd-results rule, which states that we must presume the legislature did not intend an absurd or unjust result when it enacted -7- a statute.

2015Hasler v. Industrial Comm’n, 97 Ill. 2d 46, 52 (1983) (holding that the purpose of the Act is to make an injured employee whole). ¶ 31 Indeed, the contrary interpretation would run afoul of the absurd-results rule, which states that we must presume the legislature did not intend an absurd or unjust result when it enacted a statute.

2016Hubble v. Bi-State Development Agency of the Illinois-Missouri Metropolitan District, 238 Ill. 2d 262, 283 (2010).

2015Hubble v. Bi-State Development Agency of the Illinois-Missouri Metropolitan District, 238 Ill. 2d 262, 283 (2010).

2003As the West Virginia Supreme Court explained in Taylor-Hurley v. Mingo County Board of Education, 209 W.Va. 780, 788 , 551 S.E.2d 702, 710 (2001), "[t]he absurd results doctrine merely permits a court to favor an otherwise reasonable construction of the statutory text over a more literal interpretation where the latter would produce a result demonstrably at odds with any conceivable legislative purpose. [Citation.] It does not, however, license a court to simply ignore or rewrite statutory language on the basis that, as written, it produces an undesirable policy result." I also note the cautio

2003Va. 780, 788 , 551 S.E.2d 702, 710 (2001), “[t]he absurd results doctrine merely permits a court to favor an otherwise reasonable construction of the statutory text over a more literal interpretation where the latter would produce a result demonstrably at odds with any conceivable legislative purpose. [Citation.] It does not, however, license a court to simply ignore or rewrite statutory language on the basis that, as written, it produces an undesirable policy result.” I also note the cautionary statement in Sutherland on Statutory Construction that “the absurd results doctrine should be used

2021See In re Donald A.G., 221 Ill. 2d 234, 246 (2006) (noting a court is not bound by the literal language of the statute if it would lead to absurd or unjust results not contemplated); see also supra ¶ 21 (“This outcome is unacceptable; we must presume the legislature did not intend an inconvenience.”). ¶ 31 In order to avoid either an absurd result or “inconvenience,” I would find that the party requesting the summons must engage in a reasonable search to ascertain whether the party to be served is located in Cook County.