Premier Prods. Co. v. Cameron, 400 P.2d 227 (Or. 1965). · Go Syfert
Search
Premier Prods. Co. v. Cameron, 400 P.2d 227 (Or. 1965). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2000 · …how including is interpreted depends upon several factors,-context, subject matter, possible legislative intention, etc. at p. 228 ✓
18 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Housing Authority v. Bennett (md, 2000-06-06)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Housing Authority v. Bennett (2×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
Md. · 2000 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
how including is interpreted depends upon several factors,-context, subject matter, possible legislative intention, etc.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State Public Defender v. Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County
Iowa · 2001 · confidence medium
Co. v. Cameron, 240 Or. 123, 124 , 400 P.2d 227, 228 (1965) (en banc); Penn Dairies v. Milk Control Comm’n, 344 Pa. 635, 635 , 26 A.2d 431, 433 (1942); Black’s Law Dictionary 763.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) BAHTA
unknown court · 2000 · confidence medium
The Term “including” Refers to the Crime of “receipt of stolen property” The word “including” comes from the verb “to include.” “Include” means “[t]o confine within, hold as in an inclosure, take in, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve.” Black’s Law Dictionary 763 (6th ed. 1990). “‘Including’ within [a] statute is interpreted as a word of enlargement or of illustrative application as well as a word of limitation.” Id. (citing Premier Products Co. v. Cameron, 400 P.2d 227, 228 (Or. 1973)).
discussed Cited "see" Baker v. Cameron (2×)
Or. · 1965 · signal: see · confidence high
See Premier Products Co., Inc. v. Cameron, 240 Or 123 , 400 P2d 227 (1965).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Premier Products Co.
v.
Cameron
Oregon Supreme Court.
Mar 24, 1965.
400 P.2d 227
1965 Ore. LEXIS 472
Clarence R. Kruger, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Robert T. Thornton, Attorney General, and E. Nordyke, Assistant Attorney General, Salem., Nathan J. Ail, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
McAllister, Perry, Sloan, O'Connell, Goodwin, Denecke, Holman.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 67%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Maryland (1)
DENECKE, J.

The issue is whether the petitioner-employer must pay unemployment taxes for commission salesmen who solicit contracts for the sale of custom storm doors, windows, and patio covers. Appellant Department of Employment Commissioner decided that the tax was payable; the trial court reversed.

The statute requires employers to pay unemployment taxes for all employees unless exempted by statute. ORS 657.087 provides:

“ ‘Employment’ does not include service performed by individals soliciting contracts for home improvements including roofing, siding and alterations of private homes to the extent that the remuneration for such services primarily consists of commissions or a share of the profit realized on each contract.”

On oral argument the attorney for the Commissioner admitted that if it were not for the phrase, “including roofing, * * petitioner’s employees[*125] would be soliciting contracts for “home improvements.” The Commissioner’s contention is that “including” is a word of limitation; that the general phrase, “home improvements,” is limited to only-certain kinds of “home improvements,” namely, “roofing, siding and alterations.”

This is the kind of statutory interpretation question in which a court need not pay deference to an administrative interpretation: Rogers Const. Co. v. Hill, 235 Or 352, 357, 384 P2d 219 (1963). No plausible reason has been given for distinguishing between salesmen of such home improvements as roofs and salesmen of such home improvements as windows. The known legislative history contains no indication that such a distinction was intended. “Including” can and has been interpreted as a word of enlargement, or of illustrative application, as well as a word of limitation: Arnold v. Arnold, 193 Or 490, 502, 237 P2d 963, 239 P2d 595 (1952); Federal Land Bank v. Bismark Lumber Co., 314 US 95, 62 S Ct 1, 86 L ed 65 (1941). How it is interpreted depends upon several factors,—context, subject matter, possible legislative intention, etc.

We construe the statute as not being limited to sellers of roofing, siding and alterations, but rather, to include sellers of custom storm doors, windows, and patio covers.

Affirmed.