Mabon v. Wilson

How courts have described this case

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

• confirming that only a district attorney may initiate a quo warranto proceeding in Oregon
• using “the history of the evolution of the statutory wording over time” as a tool to determine the plain meaning of a statute
• after declaring that the court was satisfied that the text, considered in context, was not ambiguous, the court considered legislative history to determine “whether that history undercuts in any way our preliminary assessment of the meaning of the [statute’s] wording”
• so holding, based on the text of the statute in context—in particular ORS 30.530 and ORS 30.610—as well as the statutory history and prior judicial constructions of the statute and its predecessors
• after stating that it is “satisfied” that there is no ambiguity when statutory terms are viewed in context, “we nonetheless look to the history of the statute to determine whether that history undercuts in any way our preliminary assessment of the meaning of the wording of [the statute]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).