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.
11 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2013 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dunning v. Corrections Facility Siting Authoritygreen2 sentences2008Dunning v. Corrections Facility Siting Authority, 325 Or 269 , 277 n 4, 935 P2d 1209 (1997) (“We apply [the] deferential standard only when the body interpreting the rule is also the body that promulgated it.”); Johnson v. Employment Dept., 187 Or App 441, 447 , 67 P3d 984 (2003). 2008Dunning v. Corrections Facility Siting Authority, 325 Or 269 , 277 n 4, 935 P2d 1209 (1997) (“We apply [the] deferential standard only when the body interpreting the rule is also the body that promulgated it.”); Johnson v. Employment Dept., 187 Or App 441, 447 , 67 P3d 984 (2003). | 2 | 6 |
Oregon Occupational Safety & Health Division v. Don Whitaker Logging, Inc.green2 sentences2013The board’s interpretation of the rules at issue is entitled to no deference, as the standard set forth in, among other cases, Coffey v. Board of Geologist Examiners, 348 Or 494, 509 , 235 P3d 678 (2010) (an agency’s plausible interpretation of its own administrative rule is entitled to deference), applies “only when the body interpreting the rule also is the body that promulgated it.” OR-OSHA v. Don Whitaker Logging, Inc., 329 Or 256 , 262 n 7, 985 P2d 1272 (1999). 2013The board’s interpretation of the rules at issue is entitled to no deference, as the standard set forth in, among other cases, Coffey v. Board of Geologist Examiners, 348 Or 494, 509 , 235 P3d 678 (2010) (an agency’s plausible interpretation of its own administrative rule is entitled to deference), applies “only when the body interpreting the rule also is the body that promulgated it.” OR-OSHA v. Don Whitaker Logging, Inc., 329 Or 256 , 262 n 7, 985 P2d 1272 (1999). | 1 | 2 |
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Cornellgreen2 sentences1998Former OAR 436-35-330(19) (1993) provided: “For injuries resulting in loss of strength of the shoulder refer to OAR 436-35-350(3) and (5).” Former OAR 436-35-350(3) provided, in part: “Injuries to a unilateral specific named peripheral nerve with resultant loss of strength shall be determined based upon a preponderance of medical opinion that reports loss of strength * * * and establishes which specific named peripheral nerve is involved.” Former OAR 436-35-350(5) provided: “Loss of strength due to muscle loss or disruption of the musculotendinous unit shall be valued as if the nerve supplying 1998Former OAR 436-35-330(19) (1993) provided: “For injuries resulting in loss of strength of the shoulder refer to OAR 436-35-350(3) and (5).” Former OAR 436-35-350(3) provided, in part: “Injuries to a unilateral specific named peripheral nerve with resultant loss of strength shall be determined based upon a preponderance of medical opinion that reports loss of strength * * * and establishes which specific named peripheral nerve is involved.” Former OAR 436-35-350(5) provided: “Loss of strength due to muscle loss or disruption of the musculotendinous unit shall be valued as if the nerve supplying | 1 | 2 |
Trebesch v. Employment Divisiongreen2 sentences1997See also Trebesch v. Employment Division, 300 Or 264 , 710 P2d 136 (1985). 1997See also Trebesch v. Employment Division, 300 Or 264 , 710 P2d 136 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Coffey v. BOARD OF GEOLOGIST EXAMINERS
green
2 sentences2013We afford OR-OSHA’s interpretation of OAR 437-003-0073 no deference, as the deferential standard set forth in, among other cases, Coffey v. Board of Geologist Examiners, 348 Or 494, 509 , 235 P3d 678 (2010), applies “only when the body interpreting the rule also is the body that promulgated it.” Don Whitaker Logging, Inc., 329 Or at 262 n 7. 2013We afford OR-OSHA’s interpretation of OAR 437-003-0073 no deference, as the deferential standard set forth in, among other cases, Coffey v. Board of Geologist Examiners, 348 Or 494, 509 , 235 P3d 678 (2010), applies “only when the body interpreting the rule also is the body that promulgated it.” Don Whitaker Logging, Inc., 329 Or at 262 n 7. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Johnson v. Employment Department
green
2 sentences2008Dunning v. Corrections Facility Siting Authority, 325 Or 269 , 277 n 4, 935 P2d 1209 (1997) (“We apply [the] deferential standard only when the body interpreting the rule is also the body that promulgated it.”); Johnson v. Employment Dept., 187 Or App 441, 447 , 67 P3d 984 (2003). 2008Dunning v. Corrections Facility Siting Authority, 325 Or 269 , 277 n 4, 935 P2d 1209 (1997) (“We apply [the] deferential standard only when the body interpreting the rule is also the body that promulgated it.”); Johnson v. Employment Dept., 187 Or App 441, 447 , 67 P3d 984 (2003). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Gage v. City of Portland
green
1 sentence1997Gage v. City of Portland, 319 Or *278 308, 314-17, 877 P2d 1187 (1994). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Clark v. Jackson County
green
2 sentences1997We therefore treat our review as being one that focuses on findings of fact and their supporting evidence, with the efficacy of the “decision” thus depending derivatively on that first level of inquiry. 4 This is not a case in which we apply the deferential standard of Clark v. Jackson County, 313 Or 508 , 836 P2d 710 (1992), to the Siting Authority’s gloss on the term “available.” We apply that deferential standard only when the body interpreting the rule also is the body that promulgated it. 1997We therefore treat our review as being one that focuses on findings of fact and their supporting evidence, with the efficacy of the “decision” thus depending derivatively on that first level of inquiry. 4 This is not a case in which we apply the deferential standard of Clark v. Jackson County, 313 Or 508 , 836 P2d 710 (1992), to the Siting Authority’s gloss on the term “available.” We apply that deferential standard only when the body interpreting the rule also is the body that promulgated it. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Springfield Education Ass'n v. Springfield School District No. 19
green
2 sentences1994For example, in Springfield Education Assn. v. School Dist., 290 Or 217, 227 , 621 P2d 547 (1980), this court noted that judicial deference to an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statutory term may be appropriate “if the agency was involved in the legislative process.” See also 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Lane Co.), 305 Or 384, 390 , 752 P2d 271 (1988) (deference to an agency’s interpretation of a legal rule “can be implied from a number of characteristics,” including the fact that “the body interpreting the rule may have direct political authority from the affected community an 1994For example, in Springfield Education Assn. v. School Dist., 290 Or 217, 227 , 621 P2d 547 (1980), this court noted that judicial deference to an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statutory term may be appropriate “if the agency was involved in the legislative process.” See also 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Lane Co.), 305 Or 384, 390 , 752 P2d 271 (1988) (deference to an agency’s interpretation of a legal rule “can be implied from a number of characteristics,” including the fact that “the body interpreting the rule may have direct political authority from the affected community an | 1 | 1994–1994 |
1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Development Commission
green
2 sentences1994For example, in Springfield Education Assn. v. School Dist., 290 Or 217, 227 , 621 P2d 547 (1980), this court noted that judicial deference to an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statutory term may be appropriate “if the agency was involved in the legislative process.” See also 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Lane Co.), 305 Or 384, 390 , 752 P2d 271 (1988) (deference to an agency’s interpretation of a legal rule “can be implied from a number of characteristics,” including the fact that “the body interpreting the rule may have direct political authority from the affected community an 1994For example, in Springfield Education Assn. v. School Dist., 290 Or 217, 227 , 621 P2d 547 (1980), this court noted that judicial deference to an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statutory term may be appropriate “if the agency was involved in the legislative process.” See also 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Lane Co.), 305 Or 384, 390 , 752 P2d 271 (1988) (deference to an agency’s interpretation of a legal rule “can be implied from a number of characteristics,” including the fact that “the body interpreting the rule may have direct political authority from the affected community an | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Anderson v. Peden
green
2 sentences1988Anderson v. Peden, 284 Or 313 , 318 n 3, 587 P2d 59 (1978). 5 (2) A similar implication may arise when a statute assigns the agency’s tasks in broad terms that delegate to the agency responsibility for completing a general legislative policy. 1988Anderson v. Peden, 284 Or 313 , 318 n 3, 587 P2d 59 (1978). 5 (2) A similar implication may arise when a statute assigns the agency’s tasks in broad terms that delegate to the agency responsibility for completing a general legislative policy. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.