Code). See supra ¶ 16. 135 State courts and state legislatures function in dialogue with one another and serve as checks on one another's power-alternately reinforcing, calling into question, and even reversing the other's law-making activities. In the words of one commentator, we live in a "world where common and statutory law are woven together in a complex fabric." David L. Shapiro, Continuity and Change in Statutory Interpretation, 67 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 921, 937 (1992). When courts fill interstices in statutory law in a manner the legislature disapproves of, the legislature can amend the statute to direct a different outcome in future cases. Similarly, the legislature can overrule or preempt common law doctrines by statute. See, eg., Bishop v. GenTec Inc., 2002 UT 36, ¶ 12, 48 P.3d 218 (<HOLDING>). Although courts cannot overrule statutory law
holding that county liability under  1983 cannot rest on a theory of respondeat superior holding that employees defamatory statements made at work about matters relating to work were within the scope of their employment for purposes of respondeat superior and recognizing that californias respondeat superior doctrine imposes a broad rule of liability on employers holding that the liability reform act preempted in part the common law doctrine of respondeat superior recognizing respondeat superior liability holding that liability in a  1983 action must be predicated on personal involvement not on the basis of respondeat superior