interpretation rule in Oregon

2025Nacey v. Board of Massage Therapists, 287 Or App 228, 233 , 401 P3d 275 (2017).

2025Nacey v. Board of Massage Therapists, 287 Or App 228, 233 , 401 P3d 275 (2017).

2023See, e.g., Marbet v. Portland General Electric, 277 Or 447, 463 , 561 P2d 154 (1977) (in the context of energy facil- ity siting, agency must provide notice of a standard “suffi- ciently in advance of the final decision so that the applicant and other parties can address the import of the standard for the particular project”); Martini v. OLCC, 110 Or App 508, 513 , 823 P2d 1015 (1992) (agreeing with an agency “that it may make policy refinements in deciding contested cases and that those may include changes in its interpretations of statutes and rules” but also concluding that, when an agency

2023See, e.g., Marbet v. Portland General Electric, 277 Or 447, 463 , 561 P2d 154 (1977) (in the context of energy facil- ity siting, agency must provide notice of a standard “suffi- ciently in advance of the final decision so that the applicant and other parties can address the import of the standard for the particular project”); Martini v. OLCC, 110 Or App 508, 513 , 823 P2d 1015 (1992) (agreeing with an agency “that it may make policy refinements in deciding contested cases and that those may include changes in its interpretations of statutes and rules” but also concluding that, when an agency

2016Smothers recognized the unsettled state of this court’s prior remedy clause jurisprudence and attempted to resolve, once and for all, the proper interpretation of the clause. 332 Or at 90-91 .

2016Smothers recognized the unsettled state of this court’s prior remedy-clause jurisprudence and attempted to resolve, once and for all, the proper interpretation of the clause. 332 Or at 90-91 .

2010SAIF v. Donahue-Birran, 195 Or.App. 173, 181 , 96 P.3d 1282 (2004).

2010SAIF v. Donahue-Birran, 195 Or.App. 173, 181 , 96 P.3d 1282 (2004).

2026A.G. v. Guitron, 351 Or 465, 471 , 268 P3d 589 (2011) (“we apply the usual method of statutory interpretation” to ORCPs (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 619-20 , 317 P3d 889 (2013) (when a rule of civil procedure is promul- gated by the Council on Court Procedures and accepted by the legislature without amendment, the intent of the council governs the interpretation of the rule).

2026A.G. v. Guitron, 351 Or 465, 471 , 268 P3d 589 (2011) (“we apply the usual method of statutory interpretation” to ORCPs (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 619-20 , 317 P3d 889 (2013) (when a rule of civil procedure is promul- gated by the Council on Court Procedures and accepted by the legislature without amendment, the intent of the council governs the interpretation of the rule).

2023Cite as 323 Or App 531 (2023) 541 In arguing that the contract is ambiguous, peti- tioners point to section 4.5 of the contract.

2023Where “the provision of law” at issue is the rule itself, and the agency offers a “plausible interpreta- tion” of that rule, then “there is no basis on which this court Cite as 370 Or 792 (2023) 801 can assert that the rule has been interpreted ‘erroneously’ ” unless the interpretation is “shown either to be inconsistent with the wording of the rule itself, or with the rule’s context, or with any other source of law.” Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132, 142 , 881 P2d 119 (1994).

2022Cite as 320 Or App 205 (2022) 215 violation and, conversely, a violation can exist absent acci- dent or injury.

2021In Oil Re-Refining Co., the Supreme Court concluded that the agency’s interpretation of the rule in dispute was the “only” plausible one, and there- fore the interpretation that the court would apply regard- less of deference. 361 Or at 13 .

2021That rendered the deference question in that case “moot.” Id.

2019Treated as a question of fact, the board’s determina- tion that SAIF’s form “referred to the WCD’s interpretation of that standard (‘more than 2/3 of the time’)” is supported by substantial evidence if “the record, viewed as a whole, [would] permit[ ] a reasonable person to make the finding.” Garcia v. Boise Cascade Corp., 309 Or 292, 294 , 787 P2d 884 (1990).

2019Treated as a question of fact, the board’s determina- tion that SAIF’s form “referred to the WCD’s interpretation of that standard (‘more than 2/3 of the time’)” is supported by substantial evidence if “the record, viewed as a whole, [would] permit[ ] a reasonable person to make the finding.” Garcia v. Boise Cascade Corp., 309 Or 292, 294 , 787 P2d 884 (1990).

2018App. 652 , 658, 310 P.3d 1195 (2013) ; see also Waddill v. Anchor Hocking, Inc. , 330 Or. 376 , 382 n. 2, 8 P.3d 200 (2000), adh'd to on recons. , 331 Or. 595 , 18 P.3d 1096 (2001) ("[U]nless the legislature amended the rule at issue in a particular case in a manner that affects the issues in that case, the Council's intent governs the interpretation of the rule.").

2018Haskins v. Palmateer , 186 Or.

2018But, in concluding that the ARU's interpretation of the rule was plausible, our opinion did refer to dictionary definitions of "significant": "The definition of 'significant' includes 'having meaning' and 'having or likely to have influence or effect'; it is synonymous with 'important,' 'weighty,' and 'notable.' " 269 Or.

2018App. at 583 , 346 P.3d 530 (citing Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary , 2116 (unabridged ed. 2002)).

2016In interpreting administrative rules, we apply the same general principles applicable to an interpretation of statutes, see Perlenfein and Perlenfein, 316 Or 16, 22-23 , 848 P2d 604 (1993), deferring to plausible interpretations of administrative rules by the agency that promulgated them.

2016In interpreting administrative rules, we apply the same general principles applicable to an interpretation of statutes, see Perlenfein and Perlenfein, 316 Or 16, 22-23 , 848 P2d 604 (1993), deferring to plausible interpretations of administrative rules by the agency that promulgated them.

2016See AFSCME Local 2623, 315 Or at 79 (“Numerous individual fact situations can arise under any rule, but judicial review of the rule as applied to each of those situations is reserved to other forums.”); Wilson v. Dept. of Corrections, 259 Or App 554, 556 , 314 P3d 994 (2013) (in reviewing the validity of a rule under ORS 183.400(1), “we are limited to consideration of the rule itself, statutory provisions authorizing the rule, and documents bearing on compliance with rulemaking procedures”).

2016See AFSCME Local 2623, 315 Or at 79 (“Numerous individual fact situations can arise under any rule, but judicial review of the rule as applied to each of those situations is reserved to other forums.”); Wilson v. Dept. of Corrections, 259 Or App 554, 556 , 314 P3d 994 (2013) (in reviewing the validity of a rule under ORS 183.400(1), “we are limited to consideration of the rule itself, statutory provisions authorizing the rule, and documents bearing on compliance with rulemaking procedures”).

2015Because the department is the source of the rule defining value of the loss, OAR 150-308.205-(F)(3)(k), the department’s interpretation of that rule is entitled to deference “as long as its interpretation is a plausible one and not inconsistent with the rule, its context, or any other source of law.” Powerex Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 357 Or 40, 54 , 346 P3d 476 (2015) (quotation omitted).

2015Because the department is the source of the rule defining value of the loss, OAR 150-308.205-(F)(3)(k), the department’s interpretation of that rule is entitled to deference “as long as its interpretation is a plausible one and not inconsistent with the rule, its context, or any other source of law.” Powerex Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 357 Or 40, 54 , 346 P3d 476 (2015) (quotation omitted).

2013Ring v. Employment Dept., 205 Or App 532, 536 , 134 P3d 1096 (2006); Jordan v. Employment Dept., 195 Or App 404, 409 , 97 P3d 1273 (2004); see also McPherson, 285 Or 541, 550 , 591 P2d 1381 (1979).

2013Ring v. Employment Dept., 205 Or App 532, 536 , 134 P3d 1096 (2006); Jordan v. Employment Dept., 195 Or App 404, 409 , 97 P3d 1273 (2004); see also McPherson, 285 Or 541, 550 , 591 P2d 1381 (1979).

2013Ring v. Employment Dept., 205 Or App 532, 536 , 134 P3d 1096 (2006); Jordan v. Employment Dept., 195 Or App 404, 409 , 97 P3d 1273 (2004); see also McPherson, 285 Or 541, 550 , 591 P2d 1381 (1979).

2013Ring v. Employment Dept., 205 Or App 532, 536 , 134 P3d 1096 (2006); Jordan v. Employment Dept., 195 Or App 404, 409 , 97 P3d 1273 (2004); see also McPherson, 285 Or 541, 550 , 591 P2d 1381 (1979).