In Riggs v. Palmer, the famous Slayer Rule case, the majority either didn't bother quoting the text of the state law it was purporting to interpret, or the text was so irrelevant to the opinion that the casebook editors left it out. It does quote Rutherford's Institutes though.
If a court wanted to play junior political scientist (which they like to do in certain other contexts!) Riggs is exactly the kind of case where the legislature would be adequately motived to fix any perceived injustices or flaws in the law, lessening need for judicial fabrication
Also, Riggs seems to be Ex Post Facto & Double Jeopardy violation. The Ex Post Facto ban applies directly to states; DJ wasn't incorporated until later but NY const'n likely had similar prohibition. The court created & applied a new punishment, after murder & conviction occurred
