i dismissed "court has" earlier, but after reviewing it again, it makes more sense in self context because "is" is present tense and the statement is explaining the law has alleviated that case, where "has" is past tense. IF
i recall correctly, the ambiguity of wording is enough to call the law itself into question for an interpretation by the judge and/or for them to recuse themselves based on jurisdiction authority and toss whatever point is being based on that law out for the matter in question for the time-being such that the matter could handed off to a superior court for that one particular matter. In other words, it would be pretty rare for a law that had been written with ambiguity to be decided by a case of whatever kind that was not aimed at deciding it directly. Depending on what your aim is regarding how the law is "used" in the context of any litigation one or the other "case" of interpretation would need to be asked of the judge and they would need to rule on it right there and then. If you wanted it thrown out then finding two cases that used it in the past that used it in two different interpretations would be all that's necessary. Or on the other hand, just finding one that is contrary to what you are looking for would do the same thing, i.e. to be sure. On the third hand, if you want
the law to be interpreted the way you are reading it then do the Italian thing and "fuggetaboutit". :) And on the fourth hand, if you have any doubt whatsoever, and you should, then you should do a case history anyways just to be sure. If you have the time, then the fourth hand is suggested if it matters.
"*They*" use Lexis-Nexus for such things ( computer database of case history they pay big lawyer bucks to have monthly access ). http://www.lexisnexis.com