Burlington Northern Railroad v. Oklahoma Tax Commission

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that where a statute is clear and unambiguous, the statutory language must control, unless there is clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary
• suggesting that legislative history should only be used to elucidate the meaning of the statutory text
• stating that \[l]egislative history can be a legitimate guide to a statutory purpose obscured by ambiguity\
• noting that when statutory language is ambiguous in helping court to determine statute’s purpose, court then should consider legislative history
• noting that in attempting to ascertain purpose of statute, courts first should consider language of statute
• noting that “[a]fter an extended period of congressional investigation, Congress concluded that ‘railroads are over-taxed by at least $50 million each year’” (quoting H. R. Rep. No. 94-725, p. 78 (1975))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).