green
Positive treatment
Trending · 156 recent citers
Issue: Committee hearingOR ↗
Issue: legislative standardOR ↗
Issue: recklessness instructionOR ↗
Issue: merger analysisOR ↗
Quoted verbatim 37×
64.2 score
G Cite
cited 7× by 6 distinct cases, last quoted 2011 ·
…as a general rule, we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage.
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 6× by 5 distinct cases, 2010–2023 · 2 courts ·
…we are hesitant to ascribe to the legislative assembly as a whole the single remark of a single nonlegislator at a committee hearing.
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 6× by 6 distinct cases, 2012–2023 ·
…we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage.
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Aguirre v. State of Oregon
we assume that the legislature did not intend any por- tion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Aguirre v. State of Oregon
we assume that the legislature did not intend any por- tion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
21+ Tobacco and Vapor Retail Assn. v. Multnomah County
as a general rule, we assume that the legislature did not intend any por- tion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
21+ Tobacco and Vapor Retail Assn. v. Multnomah County
as a general rule, we assume that the legislature did not intend any por- tion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Schwartz v. Washington County
we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless sur- plusage.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Schwartz v. Washington County
we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless sur- plusage.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Cassidy
we assume that the legislature did not intend any por- tion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Cassidy
we assume that the legislature did not intend any por- tion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Childress v. Board of Psychology
we are hesitant to ascribe to the legislative assembly as a whole the single remark of a single nonlegislator at a committee hearing.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Childress v. Board of Psychology
we are hesitant to ascribe to the legislative assembly as a whole the single remark of a single nonlegislator at a committee hearing.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
DeHart v. Tofte
we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
DeHart v. Tofte
we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. V. L.
also considered part of the broader context of a statute is the legislative history of related statutes.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Jondle
when the dispositive issue involves the meaning of applicable statutes, we review the court's ruling as a matter of law.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Marshall v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP
we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Zook
we are hesitant to ascribe to the legislative assembly as a whole the single remark of a single nonlegislator at a committee hearing.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Bay Area Hospital v. Oregon Health Authority
(2×)
we are hesitant to ascribe to the legislative assembly as a whole the single remark of a single nonlegislator at a committee hearing.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Civil
we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Breshears
the legislature intended the phrase 'the victim does not consent' to apply either to actual lack of consent or incapacity to consent because the victim was under the age of 18.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Bowen
we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Bernhardt
ur best judgment is that the legislature intended the phrase 'the victim does not consent' in ors 163.425 to apply either to actual lack of consent or incapacity to consent because the victim was under the age of 18.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Meek
we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Richardson v. Oregon Department of Transportation
we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
McCollum v. State ex rel. Department of Land Conservation & Development
in practical effect, we directly review the agency's order for compliance with the standards set out in ors 183.484(5).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ericsson v. State
in practical effect, we directly review the agency's order for compliance with the standards set out in ors 183.484(5).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hoekstre v. STATE EX REL. DLCD
in practical effect, we directly review the agency's order for compliance with the standards set out in ors 183.484(5).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Donovan
as a general rule, we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Lamb v. Coursey
as a general rule, we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Suchi v. SAIF Corp.
we are hesitant to ascribe to the legislative assembly as a whole the single remark of a single nonlegislator at a committee hearing.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Pete's Mountain Homeowners Ass'n v. Oregon Water Resources Department
as a general rule, we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Certain Underwriters v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance
we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Department of Human Services v. B. A. S.
(2×)
as a general rule, we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Kelly
we are hesitant to ascribe to the legislative assembly as a whole the single remark of a single nonlegislator at a committee hearing
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County
as a general rule, we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Lenon v. Public Employees Retirement Board
(3×)
in our judgment, concluding that the legislature merely said more than it needed to is far less offensive to legislative prerogative than holding that the legislature did not mean what it said.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Roats Water System, Inc. v. Golfside Investments, LLC
as a general rule, we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Department of Revenue v. Faris
the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Levitt
See State v. Stamper, 197 Or App 413, 418 , 106 P3d 172 , rev den, 339 Or 230 (2005) (explaining that “we assume that the leg- islature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Levitt
See State v. Stamper, 197 Or App 413, 418 , 106 P3d 172 , rev den, 339 Or 230 (2005) (explaining that “we assume that the leg- islature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Leake
See State v. Stamper, 197 Or App 413, 418 , 106 P3d 172 , rev den, 339 Or 230 (2005) (“As a general rule, we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of 7 The 1935 edition reflects the same.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Leake
See State v. Stamper, 197 Or App 413, 418 , 106 P3d 172 , rev den, 339 Or 230 (2005) (“As a general rule, we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of 7 The 1935 edition reflects the same.
cited
Cited "see"
Kaser v. PERS
See G.A.S.P. v. Environmental Quality Commission, 198 Or App 182, 187 , 108 P3d 95 , rev den, 339 Or 230 (2005) (explain- ing our standard of review).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Villagomez
See State v. Stamper, 197 Or App 413, 418 , 106 P3d 172 , rev den, 339 Or 230 (2005) (explaining that we generally assume that the legislature “did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Cox
See State v. Hayes, 186 Or App 49, 57 , 61 P3d 960 (2003), rev den, 339 Or 230 (2005) (declining to reach the defendant’s alternative federal constitutional basis for affirmance because, inter alia, the defendant did not raise and develop that argument in the trial court).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Coffman
See State v. Hayes, 186 Or App 49, 56-57 , 61 P3d 960 (2003), rev den, 339 Or 230 (2005) (remanding case to the trial court for consideration of exploitation issue).
discussed
Cited "see"
Riverkeepers v. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
See G.A.S.P. v. Environmental Quality Commission, 198 Or App 182, 187 , 108 P3d 95 , rev den, 339 Or 230 (2005) (we review to determine compliance with the standards set forth in ORS 183.484(5)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gasp v. Eqc
(2×)
See generally G.A.S.P. v. Environmental Quality Commission, 198 Or.App. 182, 185 , 108 P.3d 95 , rev.den., 339 Or. 230 , 119 P.3d 790 (2005) ( G.A.S.P.
cited
Cited "see"
G.A.S.P. v. Environmental Quality Commission
See generally G.A.S.P. v. Environmental Quality Commission, 198 Or App 182, 185 , 108 P3d 95 , rev den, 339 Or 230 (2005) (G.A.S.P.
cited
Cited "see"
Hendricks v. Hill
Accord Makinson v. Lampert, 199 Or App 418, 420-21 , 112 P3d 364 , rev den, 339 Or 230 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Holcomb
Accord State v. Atkin, 190 Or App 387, 391-92 , 78 P3d 1259 (2003), rev den, 339 Or 230 (2005) (holding that officer’s retention of identification for less than a minute effected a stop where, while retaining the identification, the officer “radioed headquarters to determine whether [the defendant] was a criminal, asked her if the purse she identified as hers contained weapons or drugs, and asked for consent to search the purse”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
MAKINSON
v.
LAMPERT.
v.
LAMPERT.
S52505.
Oregon Supreme Court.
Aug 23, 2005.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (38) · Oregon Tax Court (3)
Petition for review denied.