Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Webbgreen2 sentences2021As the Supreme Court explained in State v. Webb, 324 Or 380, 386 , 927 P2d 79 (1996): “ ‘Referential and qualifying words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, refer solely to the last antecedent. 2021As the Supreme Court explained in State v. Webb, 324 Or 380, 386 , 927 P2d 79 (1996): “ ‘Referential and qualifying words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, refer solely to the last antecedent. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Clemente-Perezgreen2 sentences2018See State v. Clemente-Perez, 357 Or 745, 754 , 359 P3d 232 (2015) (“The doctrine of the last antecedent provides that ‘[r]eferential and qualifying words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, refer solely to the last antecedent,’ ” and that “ ‘[t]he last antecedent is the last word, phrase, or clause that can be made an antecedent without impair- ing the meaning of the sentence.’ ” (Quoting State v. Webb, 324 Or 380, 386 , 927 P2d 79 (1996).)). 4 Although ORS 162.375 appears to be designed to prevent the waste of the resources of an organization that responds to emergencies, we emp 2018See State v. Clemente-Perez, 357 Or 745, 754 , 359 P3d 232 (2015) (“The doctrine of the last antecedent provides that ‘[r]eferential and qualifying words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, refer solely to the last antecedent,’ ” and that “ ‘[t]he last antecedent is the last word, phrase, or clause that can be made an antecedent without impair- ing the meaning of the sentence.’ ” (Quoting State v. Webb, 324 Or 380, 386 , 927 P2d 79 (1996).)). 4 Although ORS 162.375 appears to be designed to prevent the waste of the resources of an organization that responds to emergencies, we emp | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lipscomb v. State Bd. of Higher Ed.
green
2 sentences2024Redundancy in communication is a fact of life and of law.”); Thomas Creek Lumber and Log Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 344 Or 131, 138 , 178 P3d 217 (2008) (adopting interpretation of a tax statute that made “some words * * * redundant,” not- ing that “nothing prohibits the legislature from saying the same thing twice”); Johnson v. Craddock et al, 228 Or 308, 316 , 365 P2d 89 (1961) (stating that the “doctrine of the last antecedent is not inflexible and is never applied when a fur- ther extension is clearly required by the intent and meaning of the context or when to apply a grammatical rule literall 2024Redundancy in communication is a fact of life and of law.”); Thomas Creek Lumber and Log Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 344 Or 131, 138 , 178 P3d 217 (2008) (adopting interpretation of a tax statute that made “some words * * * redundant,” not- ing that “nothing prohibits the legislature from saying the same thing twice”); Johnson v. Craddock et al, 228 Or 308, 316 , 365 P2d 89 (1961) (stating that the “doctrine of the last antecedent is not inflexible and is never applied when a fur- ther extension is clearly required by the intent and meaning of the context or when to apply a grammatical rule literall | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Johnson v. CRADDOCK
green
2 sentences2024Redundancy in communication is a fact of life and of law.”); Thomas Creek Lumber and Log Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 344 Or 131, 138 , 178 P3d 217 (2008) (adopting interpretation of a tax statute that made “some words * * * redundant,” not- ing that “nothing prohibits the legislature from saying the same thing twice”); Johnson v. Craddock et al, 228 Or 308, 316 , 365 P2d 89 (1961) (stating that the “doctrine of the last antecedent is not inflexible and is never applied when a fur- ther extension is clearly required by the intent and meaning of the context or when to apply a grammatical rule literall 2024Redundancy in communication is a fact of life and of law.”); Thomas Creek Lumber and Log Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 344 Or 131, 138 , 178 P3d 217 (2008) (adopting interpretation of a tax statute that made “some words * * * redundant,” not- ing that “nothing prohibits the legislature from saying the same thing twice”); Johnson v. Craddock et al, 228 Or 308, 316 , 365 P2d 89 (1961) (stating that the “doctrine of the last antecedent is not inflexible and is never applied when a fur- ther extension is clearly required by the intent and meaning of the context or when to apply a grammatical rule literall | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Thomas Creek Lumber & Log Co. v. Department of Revenue
green
2 sentences2024Redundancy in communication is a fact of life and of law.”); Thomas Creek Lumber and Log Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 344 Or 131, 138 , 178 P3d 217 (2008) (adopting interpretation of a tax statute that made “some words * * * redundant,” not- ing that “nothing prohibits the legislature from saying the same thing twice”); Johnson v. Craddock et al, 228 Or 308, 316 , 365 P2d 89 (1961) (stating that the “doctrine of the last antecedent is not inflexible and is never applied when a fur- ther extension is clearly required by the intent and meaning of the context or when to apply a grammatical rule literall 2024Redundancy in communication is a fact of life and of law.”); Thomas Creek Lumber and Log Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 344 Or 131, 138 , 178 P3d 217 (2008) (adopting interpretation of a tax statute that made “some words * * * redundant,” not- ing that “nothing prohibits the legislature from saying the same thing twice”); Johnson v. Craddock et al, 228 Or 308, 316 , 365 P2d 89 (1961) (stating that the “doctrine of the last antecedent is not inflexible and is never applied when a fur- ther extension is clearly required by the intent and meaning of the context or when to apply a grammatical rule literall | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Curly's Dairy, Inc. v. State Department of Agriculture
green
2 sentences2010If the petitioner moves to dismiss *140 the petition before expiration of the time provided for in subsection (6) of this section, the court may not award costs or attorney fees to the board.” Applying the familiar grammatical principle that a phrase set off by commas functions as a parenthetical, we see that, if petitioner failed to state a colorable claim, then the Court of Appeals could award both “the board’s recoverable costs,” and “attorney fees incurred by the board not to exceed $100.” See Curly’s Dairy v. Dept. of Agriculture, 244 Or 15, 21 , 415 P2d 740 (1966) (punctuation may assist 2010If the petitioner moves to dismiss *140 the petition before expiration of the time provided for in subsection (6) of this section, the court may not award costs or attorney fees to the board.” Applying the familiar grammatical principle that a phrase set off by commas functions as a parenthetical, we see that, if petitioner failed to state a colorable claim, then the Court of Appeals could award both “the board’s recoverable costs,” and “attorney fees incurred by the board not to exceed $100.” See Curly’s Dairy v. Dept. of Agriculture, 244 Or 15, 21 , 415 P2d 740 (1966) (punctuation may assist | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.