Court of Appeals of Oregon· 6/2/1999

Young v. State

Citations

983 P.2d 1044
161 Or. App. 32
1999 Ore. App. LEXIS 1020

How courts have described this case

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

explaining that context of statute includes prior enactment, prior judicial interpretations, and historical context
explaining that context of statute includes prior enactment, prior judicial interpretations, and historical context
declining to read statute to exempt white collar workers from overtime law because “there is no principled way” to read the existing statutory language to say that
“[T]he legislative power includes the authority to write a seemingly absurd law, so long as the intent to do that is stated clearly.”
absurd results rule limited to cases in which statute remains ambiguous after examination of text, context, and legislative history
where statutory text is unambiguous, contextual evidence that “fails to demonstrate explicitly an alternative and plausible legislative intent” does not create an ambiguity in the text

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Muniz, De Muniz, Landau, Haselton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

33 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.