Can anyone out there tell me where to look to find-
" there is a line of cases out there ie. in Virginia which says that although courts are normally required to follow the literal meaning of the statute, that rule does not apply when the result is absurd."
I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know, but it is vital that I find these.
And I was so certain this thread was addressed to me. Sorry. You need Bloo.
Susan
She lured me in, too. 
In lieu of Bloo, try googling “virginia statute result absurd.” Basically, it appears to be saying that a literal interpretation of a statute is inappropriate if it results in an absurd situation.
One example was for revocation of a driver’s license for DUI. While this may be required by the statute, one also has to consider if revocation will prevent the individual from earning a living.
What did you do, anyway?
this ain’t a google kind of find it thing, assuming I understand what you want…
them lawyers got places to search all their own
them places costs money to go to
There is no need to be discouraging, sir. If you have no clue, just keep it to yourself. Tsk.
I’m finding this highly informative, as it happens.
having a clue has become a prerequisite to posting?
some of the members here are NOT going to take that well…
I got a strange prickly sensation in the back of my neck and then discovered that susnfx had conjured me. I appreciate that Bloo is what comes to mind first when dealing with absurdity, but am not sure that I can help.
You’d expect every jurisdiction to have cases stating that absurd results are, um, absurd and shouldn’t be regarded as intended by the legislature (too optimistic a view of every legislature I’ve known but that’s beside the point).
The best way to find these is probably to find a law student, who can search those places that cost money for free (they’re Westlaw and Lexis/Nexis). Many libraries in court houses will also provide free access to anyone. Google, findlaw.com, and blogs are also worth a try.
BUT I feel that I should mention that this approach to an issue that is “vital” to you doesn’t strike me as optimal. For two reasons. One: If a proposed “literal” reading of a statute is indeed absurd, no judge or lawyer (unless paid to do so) will take take the few that the absurd result is correct because it is a “literal” reading. Supplying a case that says “don’t use the literal meaning if it is absurd” won’t help because either everyone will already agree, or they don’t agree and a case about absurd vs. literal won’t make them agree. That leads to the second reason: It’s all about absurd. My expectation would be that disagreement exists over whether a particular reading of the statute is absurd (and not over what to do if that reading is accepted as absurd). This means that time and energy is better spent showing why you think a particular reading of the statute is absurd (with careful reference to the language, the origin, the implications, and the effects of the statute or a particular interpretation). An argument that a statute is absurd is not an easy one to make and a less ambitious argument might be more successful; for example, the argument that in these particular, unforeseen circumstances a literal reading of the statute will lead to results that are at odds with the stated and clear intent of the statute.
Good luck!
The law is built to be literal. That is why it is so wordy: the words have an exact meaning.
Judges have a degree of latitude in interpreting the law. But everyone has their own opinion as to what is and what is not absurd.
Juries will sometimes find a result contrary to the face of all the evidence if they disagree with the likely consequence of a particular verdict. Judges have been known to invoke archaic precedents to avoid an undesireable sentence.
It sounds as though what you want is an account of cases where the Judge overturned a particular verdict, or truncated the sentence out of existence. You can’t rely on this. They are precedents in defiance of the law, not in support of it. You might as well argue Gödel’s theorem.
That may work in the US Lamby, but that argument would not work here, get caught DUI - bye bye license whether you need it for your job or not. You might get a reduced ban if there are extenuating circumstances, but it will likely be a minimum of 1 year plus a fine of the equivelant of $1000 upwards (to a max of $5000). If the offence is judged serious enough it can mean prison.
David
Exact meaning my foot. 
Thanks folks, y’all really are the source of all knowledge.
(trying to help out our lawyer with this search)
gotta go to work now-
Bloo, you have a pm
If your lawyer has you looking to whistle and flute message boards for legal research, you MAY want to consider a new lawyer…
I’m just sayin’…
I’d like a few more “ergos” if you dont’ mind.
Shhh…don’t tell him. I think it’s cute. 
Susan
Of course exact meaning. Ergo 
people argue about them interminably. If they were vague, people would have agreed on the meanings ages ago.
Ummm…yeah…I won’t be posting for a while 
little late for that innit?
where ya been?
I had a clue once. It’s around here someplace.
Trying to find my clue?
I’d dropped mine while hiding under my desk…
found it the next time YMMV