reference clause in Oregon

2018As the Court of Appeals has observed, "If, upon sentencing, each crime becomes part of the criminal history, * * * then the reference in the rule to prior convictions at the time of the crimes of conviction becomes mere surplusage." State v. Allen , 151 Or.

2018App. 281 , 290-91, 948 P.2d 745 (1997) (emphasis added).

2021Purdy III, 281 Or App at 427 n 9 (quoting Phillips, 269 Or at 501 , and listing Roach factors, among them, “[t]he availability of a substitute product which would meet the same need and not be as unsafe”; and “[t]he man- ufacturer’s ability to eliminate the unsafe character of the product without impairing its usefulness or making it too expensive to maintain its utility”).

2015We are instructed not to give a construc- tion to enactments that renders portions of it meaningless, Cite as 358 Or 147 (2015) 173 if possible.

2001After plaintiff had objected to Farmers’s proposed modification instruction, counsel for Farmers suggested to the trial court that it was error to omit a reference to the requirement of mutual assent: “Your honor, I would point out to the Court, for example, that in [Marnon, 184 Or at 158-59 ], which we cite, it is of course well established that the minds of the parties must have met upon the asserted modification.” However, counsel for Farmers made that comment as part of his argument in support of the proposed modification instruction.

1999Id. at 546-47 .

1991The court then addressed the appellant’s contention that “mistakes in the contents of a notice of appeal are not jurisdictional,” id., and held that the reference requirement of ORS 19.029(l)(c) — that a notice of appeal contain ‘ ‘ [a] notice to all parties or their attorneys * * * that an appeal is taken from the judgment or some specified part thereof’ — was jurisdictional because of the express wording of ORS 19.033(2).

1983The court pointed out that the common reference to the rule “as if it were unitary is somewhat misleading.” 293 Or at 245 .

1975Footnote 6 was a reference to the requirement, in the body of the Miller opinion, that sexual conduct “must be specifically defined by the applicable state law * * 413 US at 24 .

1943Co. , (D.C.) 47 F.2d 318 ; or because the reference clause, in express terms, free from ambiguity, specifically indicates the existence of conditions respecting the right of action on the bond itself as distinguished from the security.

1943Co. , (D.C.) 47 F.2d 318 ; or because the reference clause, in express terms, free from ambiguity, specifically indicates the existence of conditions respecting the right of action on the bond itself as distinguished from the security.

1943There are other cases distinguishable because the reference clause is so worded as either to embrace clearly all the provisions of the collateral instrument, as where the bond is made "subject to" the conditions and terms of the mortgage, Muren v. Southern Coal Mining Co. , 177 Mo. App. 600 , 160 S.W. 835 ; Hull v. Angus , 60 Or. 95 , 118 P. 284 ; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Stumpel , 247 N.Y. 538 , 161 N.E. 173 ; Lidgerwood v. Hale Kilburn Mfg.

1943There are other cases distinguishable because the reference clause is so worded as either to embrace clearly all the provisions of the collateral instrument, as where the bond is made "subject to" the conditions and terms of the mortgage, Muren v. Southern Coal Mining Co. , 177 Mo. App. 600 , 160 S.W. 835 ; Hull v. Angus , 60 Or. 95 , 118 P. 284 ; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Stumpel , 247 N.Y. 538 , 161 N.E. 173 ; Lidgerwood v. Hale Kilburn Mfg.

1943Co. , 124 Misc. 630 , 207 N.Y.S. 630 ; Bank of California v. National City Co. , 138 Wn. 517 , 244 P. 690 ; while the case of Oswianza v. Wengler Mandell , supra, where a clause in the bonds made them "subject to" all the provisions of the trust deed "with the same effect as if said trust deed were herein set forth", went much further in deciding that the bondholder was not put on notice of the provisions in the mortgage affecting his right to bring an individual action on the bond than is necessary to go in this case.

1943Co. , 124 Misc. 630 , 207 N.Y.S. 630 ; Bank of California v. National City Co. , 138 Wn. 517 , 244 P. 690 ; while the case of Oswianza v. Wengler Mandell , supra, where a clause in the bonds made them "subject to" all the provisions of the trust deed "with the same effect as if said trust deed were herein set forth", went much further in deciding that the bondholder was not put on notice of the provisions in the mortgage affecting his right to bring an individual action on the bond than is necessary to go in this case.

1943There are other cases distinguishable because the reference clause is so worded as either to embrace clearly all the provisions of the collateral instrument, as where the bond is made "subject to" the conditions and terms of the mortgage, Muren v. Southern Coal Mining Co. , 177 Mo. App. 600 , 160 S.W. 835 ; Hull v. Angus , 60 Or. 95 , 118 P. 284 ; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Stumpel , 247 N.Y. 538 , 161 N.E. 173 ; Lidgerwood v. Hale Kilburn Mfg.

1943There are other cases distinguishable because the reference clause is so worded as either to embrace clearly all the provisions of the collateral instrument, as where the bond is made "subject to" the conditions and terms of the mortgage, Muren v. Southern Coal Mining Co. , 177 Mo. App. 600 , 160 S.W. 835 ; Hull v. Angus , 60 Or. 95 , 118 P. 284 ; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Stumpel , 247 N.Y. 538 , 161 N.E. 173 ; Lidgerwood v. Hale Kilburn Mfg.

1943Allan v. Moline Plow Co. , supra; Crosthwaite v. Moline Plow Co. , 298 Fed. 466 ; Craig v. Consolidated Cement Corp. , (C.C.A. 10) 69 F.2d 613 ; Dunham v. Omaha Council Bluffs Street Ry.

1943Co. , 124 Misc. 630 , 207 N.Y.S. 630 ; Bank of California v. National City Co. , 138 Wn. 517 , 244 P. 690 ; while the case of Oswianza v. Wengler Mandell , supra, where a clause in the bonds made them "subject to" all the provisions of the trust deed "with the same effect as if said trust deed were herein set forth", went much further in deciding that the bondholder was not put on notice of the provisions in the mortgage affecting his right to bring an individual action on the bond than is necessary to go in this case.

1943Co. , 124 Misc. 630 , 207 N.Y.S. 630 ; Bank of California v. National City Co. , 138 Wn. 517 , 244 P. 690 ; while the case of Oswianza v. Wengler Mandell , supra, where a clause in the bonds made them "subject to" all the provisions of the trust deed "with the same effect as if said trust deed were herein set forth", went much further in deciding that the bondholder was not put on notice of the provisions in the mortgage affecting his right to bring an individual action on the bond than is necessary to go in this case.

1943App. 258 ; Halle v. Van Sweringen Corp. , supra. Other cases holding the reference clause insufficient cannot be said fully to sustain the plaintiff's position, because, by the reference, the holder of the bond is specifically directed to rights under the collateral *Page 395 agreement rather than under the bond: General Investment Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co. , 200 App. Div. 794 , 193 N.Y.S. 903 ; Brown v. Michigan R.

1943App. 258 ; Halle v. Van Sweringen Corp. , supra. Other cases holding the reference clause insufficient cannot be said fully to sustain the plaintiff's position, because, by the reference, the holder of the bond is specifically directed to rights under the collateral *Page 395 agreement rather than under the bond: General Investment Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co. , 200 App. Div. 794 , 193 N.Y.S. 903 ; Brown v. Michigan R.

1943There are other cases distinguishable because the reference clause is so worded as either to embrace clearly all the provisions of the collateral instrument, as where the bond is made "subject to" the conditions and terms of the mortgage, Muren v. Southern Coal Mining Co. , 177 Mo. App. 600 , 160 S.W. 835 ; Hull v. Angus , 60 Or. 95 , 118 P. 284 ; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Stumpel , 247 N.Y. 538 , 161 N.E. 173 ; Lidgerwood v. Hale Kilburn Mfg.

1943There are other cases distinguishable because the reference clause is so worded as either to embrace clearly all the provisions of the collateral instrument, as where the bond is made "subject to" the conditions and terms of the mortgage, Muren v. Southern Coal Mining Co. , 177 Mo. App. 600 , 160 S.W. 835 ; Hull v. Angus , 60 Or. 95 , 118 P. 284 ; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Stumpel , 247 N.Y. 538 , 161 N.E. 173 ; Lidgerwood v. Hale Kilburn Mfg.

1943Allan v. Moline Plow Co. , supra; Crosthwaite v. Moline Plow Co. , 298 Fed. 466 ; Craig v. Consolidated Cement Corp. , (C.C.A. 10) 69 F.2d 613 ; Dunham v. Omaha Council Bluffs Street Ry.

1892The court of appeals affirmed the order, ( 110 N. Y. 562 , 18 N. E.