Riggs was an example of the judiciary using the "social purpose" rule of statutory construction, the process of interpreting and applying legislation.
Judge Robert Earl (in office 1870 and 1875–1894) wrote the majority opinion for the court, which ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
The court reasoned that tenets of universal law and maxims would be violated by allowing Elmer to profit from his crime.
Judge Earl, in an analogy to a similar case, wrote: "The principle which lies at the bottom of the maxim, volenti non fit injuria ['to a willing person, no injury be done'], should be applied to such a case, and a widow should not, for the purpose of acquiring, as such, property rights, be permitted to allege a widowhood which she has wickedly and intentionally created."
According to Dworkin, under most versions of legal positivism, Hart's included, there should rarely be debate about what counts as law.