True/False: Since case law interprets statutes, courts should research all sources of law when determining how to administer statutes.

• A. True
• B. False
• C. It depends on the court
• D. Only if the statute is ambiguous

Answer: (A)

Interpreting a statute isn’t about reading the words in isolation. Case law shows how a statute has been applied in real cases, and those judicial interpretations shape how the statute should be administered. Because judges rely on precedent to understand meaning, a court should research all relevant sources of law—text and amendments of the statute, legislative history when appropriate, prior court decisions interpreting the statute, and any applicable administrative regulations or agency interpretations. This broader search helps ensure the statute is applied consistently with legislative intent and the existing legal framework, especially when the language is unclear or when similar issues have been decided in the past. If someone suggested relying only on the statute’s wording or leaving interpretation to certain courts or only when ambiguity exists, that would risk inconsistent application and overlook established interpretations that guide administration.