savings clause in Oregon

2025Cite as 346 Or App 38 (2025) 53 As such, we conclude that the remedies in ORS 192.407(3) are limited and self-contained, and that the savings clause in subsection (4) does not expand those remedies.

2025It provides: “Nothing in this section limits the authority of a court to act Cite as 346 Or App 38 (2025) 49 under ORS 192.431.” OHSU reads this as a savings clause, included to prevent any overlap between ORS 192.407 and ORS 192.431 from being misinterpreted as a repeal or amendment of ORS 192.431, which was enacted earlier than ORS 192.407.

2023Representative Mannix described the escape Cite as 371 Or 413 (2023) 439 clause as “a savings clause for unconscionable situations where the system didn’t work.” Id.

2023Representative Mannix described the escape Cite as 371 Or 413 (2023) 439 clause as “a savings clause for unconscionable situations where the system didn’t work.” Id.

2020Id. “[T]his means the saving clause does not save defenses that target arbitration either by name or by more subtle methods, such as by interfer[ing] with fundamental attributes of arbitration.” Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, ___ US ___, ___, 138 S Ct 1612, 1622 , 200 L Ed 2d 889 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2020Id. “[T]his means the saving clause does not save defenses that target arbitration either by name or by more subtle methods, such as by interfer[ing] with fundamental attributes of arbitration.” Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, ___ US ___, ___, 138 S Ct 1612, 1622 , 200 L Ed 2d 889 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2020The savings clause, however, does not permit defenses that apply only to arbitration or that derive their meaning from the fact that an agreement to arbitrate is Cite as 305 Or App 708 (2020) 715 at issue.

2020The savings clause, however, does not permit defenses that apply only to arbitration or that derive their meaning from the fact that an agreement to arbitrate is Cite as 305 Or App 708 (2020) 715 at issue.

2011The ballot title is referred to the Attorney General for modification. 1 The petitioners in Rasmussen, 351 Or at 202 n 3, also argued that the caption for Initiative Petition 15 was inadequate because it did not mention a savings clause found in the proposed measure which allowed for the imposition of fees that may be triggered by a person’s death.

2011Id. at 249 . 3 Petitioners also argue that the caption is inadequate because it does not mention a savings clause in the proposed measure that allows for the imposition of fees on probate and other transactions that may be triggered by a person’s death.

1995Although the parties dispute the effect of the savings clause, and marshal massive authority from other jurisdictions supporting their positions, 2 plaintiff argues that McMullen v. Volkswagen of America, 274 Or 83 , 545 P2d 117 (1976), is controlling and compels reversal.

1995Although the parties dispute the effect of the savings clause, and marshal massive authority from other jurisdictions supporting their positions, 2 plaintiff argues that McMullen v. Volkswagen of America, 274 Or 83 , 545 P2d 117 (1976), is controlling and compels reversal.

1992See also State v. Pirkey, 203 Or 697, 702 , 281 P2d 698 (1955), overruled on different grounds by City of Klamath Falls v. Winters, 289 Or 757, 781 , 619 P2d 217 (1980) (“the statutory provision specifying the punishment for the doing of specific acts constitutes an integral part of the crime itself’); State v. Moore, 192 Or 39, 45 , 233 P2d 253 (1951) (savings clauses in criminal codes “are declarative of a continuing policy of the state that the repeal of any statute shall not release or extinguish any liability incurred or affect any right accrued”); State v. Twilleager, 18 Or App 182 , 524

1992See also State v. Pirkey, 203 Or 697, 702 , 281 P2d 698 (1955), overruled on different grounds by City of Klamath Falls v. Winters, 289 Or 757, 781 , 619 P2d 217 (1980) (“the statutory provision specifying the punishment for the doing of specific acts constitutes an integral part of the crime itself’); State v. Moore, 192 Or 39, 45 , 233 P2d 253 (1951) (savings clauses in criminal codes “are declarative of a continuing policy of the state that the repeal of any statute shall not release or extinguish any liability incurred or affect any right accrued”); State v. Twilleager, 18 Or App 182 , 524

1992Trueblood v. Health Division, 28 Or App 433 , 559 P2d 931 , rev den 278 Or 621 (1977).

1992Trueblood v. Health Division, 28 Or App 433 , 559 P2d 931 , rev den 278 Or 621 (1977).

1992See also State v. Pirkey, 203 Or 697, 702 , 281 P2d 698 (1955), overruled on different grounds by City of Klamath Falls v. Winters, 289 Or 757, 781 , 619 P2d 217 (1980) (“the statutory provision specifying the punishment for the doing of specific acts constitutes an integral part of the crime itself’); State v. Moore, 192 Or 39, 45 , 233 P2d 253 (1951) (savings clauses in criminal codes “are declarative of a continuing policy of the state that the repeal of any statute shall not release or extinguish any liability incurred or affect any right accrued”); State v. Twilleager, 18 Or App 182 , 524

1992See also State v. Pirkey, 203 Or 697, 702 , 281 P2d 698 (1955), overruled on different grounds by City of Klamath Falls v. Winters, 289 Or 757, 781 , 619 P2d 217 (1980) (“the statutory provision specifying the punishment for the doing of specific acts constitutes an integral part of the crime itself’); State v. Moore, 192 Or 39, 45 , 233 P2d 253 (1951) (savings clauses in criminal codes “are declarative of a continuing policy of the state that the repeal of any statute shall not release or extinguish any liability incurred or affect any right accrued”); State v. Twilleager, 18 Or App 182 , 524

1981The court reviewed the enactment's savings clause and noted: "The wording of Section 3 of the amending law brings into conflict two concepts frequently considered as guides to statutory construction: (1) statutes are presumed to be prospective, and will be considered to be retrospective only when *652 such intent is clearly spelled out; and (2) the inclusion of specific matters tends to imply a legislative intent to exclude related matters not mentioned." 252 Or. at 233 , 448 P.2d 512 .

1981The court reviewed the enactment’s savings clause and noted: "The wording of Section 3 of the amending law brings into conflict two concepts frequently considered as guides to statutory construction: (1) statutes are presumed to be prospective, and will be considered to be retrospective only when such intent is clearly spelled out; and (2) the inclusion of specific matters tends to imply a legislative intent to exclude related matters not mentioned.” 252 Or at 233 .

1975The plaintiffs assert that the Oregon legislature must have intended to respect the adjustment in basis which the Illinois court found in Thorpe v. Mahin, supra. It is also argued that not to recognize Illinois’ basis in property would be a violation of equal protection and a burden upon the constitutional right of interstate travel, citing Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 US 250 , 94 S Ct 1076 , 39 L Ed2d 306 (1974); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 US 330 , 92 S Ct 995 , 31 L Ed2d 274 (1972); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 US 618 , 89 S Ct 1322 , 22 L Ed2d 600 (1969).

1975The plaintiffs assert that the Oregon legislature must have intended to respect the adjustment in basis which the Illinois court found in Thorpe v. Mahin, supra. It is also argued that not to recognize Illinois’ basis in property would be a violation of equal protection and a burden upon the constitutional right of interstate travel, citing Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 US 250 , 94 S Ct 1076 , 39 L Ed2d 306 (1974); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 US 330 , 92 S Ct 995 , 31 L Ed2d 274 (1972); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 US 618 , 89 S Ct 1322 , 22 L Ed2d 600 (1969).

1975The plaintiffs assert that the Oregon legislature must have intended to respect the adjustment in basis which the Illinois court found in Thorpe v. Mahin, supra. It is also argued that not to recognize Illinois’ basis in property would be a violation of equal protection and a burden upon the constitutional right of interstate travel, citing Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 US 250 , 94 S Ct 1076 , 39 L Ed2d 306 (1974); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 US 330 , 92 S Ct 995 , 31 L Ed2d 274 (1972); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 US 618 , 89 S Ct 1322 , 22 L Ed2d 600 (1969).

1975The plaintiffs assert that the Oregon legislature must have intended to respect the adjustment in basis which the Illinois court found in Thorpe v. Mahin, supra. It is also argued that not to recognize Illinois’ basis in property would be a violation of equal protection and a burden upon the constitutional right of interstate travel, citing Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 US 250 , 94 S Ct 1076 , 39 L Ed2d 306 (1974); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 US 330 , 92 S Ct 995 , 31 L Ed2d 274 (1972); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 US 618 , 89 S Ct 1322 , 22 L Ed2d 600 (1969).

1975The plaintiffs assert that the Oregon legislature must have intended to respect the adjustment in basis which the Illinois court found in Thorpe v. Mahin, supra. It is also argued that not to recognize Illinois’ basis in property would be a violation of equal protection and a burden upon the constitutional right of interstate travel, citing Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 US 250 , 94 S Ct 1076 , 39 L Ed2d 306 (1974); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 US 330 , 92 S Ct 995 , 31 L Ed2d 274 (1972); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 US 618 , 89 S Ct 1322 , 22 L Ed2d 600 (1969).

1975The plaintiffs assert that the Oregon legislature must have intended to respect the adjustment in basis which the Illinois court found in Thorpe v. Mahin, supra. It is also argued that not to recognize Illinois’ basis in property would be a violation of equal protection and a burden upon the constitutional right of interstate travel, citing Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 US 250 , 94 S Ct 1076 , 39 L Ed2d 306 (1974); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 US 330 , 92 S Ct 995 , 31 L Ed2d 274 (1972); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 US 618 , 89 S Ct 1322 , 22 L Ed2d 600 (1969).

1945Koshkonong v. Burton, 104 U. S. 668 ; Sohn v. Watterson, 17 Wall 596; McLaughlin v. Hoover, 1 Or. 31 .

1945Koshkonong v. Burton, 104 U. S. 668 ; Sohn v. Watterson, 17 Wall 596; McLaughlin v. Hoover, 1 Or. 31 .