auxiliary rule in Oregon

8 Oregon opinions name it 3 courts 1954–2017 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.

Followed or applied (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
Cabell v. City of Cottage Grovegreen or · 1942 · cited in 8 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1954–2017 2 sentences 2017In Colby v. Gunson, 224 Or App 666, 671-72 , 199 P3d 350 (2008), rev’d on other grounds, 349 Or 1 , 238 P3d 374 (2010), we cautioned about reliance on the expressio unius maxim to determine legislative intent: “We qualified the value of that maxim in determining statutory intent in State ex rel City of Powers v. Coos County Airport, 201 Or App 222, 234 , 119 P3d 225 , rev den, 341 Or 197 (2005): “‘[B]oth we and the Supreme Court have repeatedly warned the bench and bar that expressio unius is not a rule of law but is instead a guide to understanding legislative intent. * * * The maxim “is to b 2017In Colby v. Gunson, 224 Or App 666, 671-72 , 199 P3d 350 (2008), rev’d on other grounds, 349 Or 1 , 238 P3d 374 (2010), we cautioned about reliance on the expressio unius maxim to determine legislative intent: “We qualified the value of that maxim in determining statutory intent in State ex rel City of Powers v. Coos County Airport, 201 Or App 222, 234 , 119 P3d 225 , rev den, 341 Or 197 (2005): “‘[B]oth we and the Supreme Court have repeatedly warned the bench and bar that expressio unius is not a rule of law but is instead a guide to understanding legislative intent. * * * The maxim “is to b	1	8

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

Case	Cited	Years
State Ex Rel. City of Powers v. Coos County Airport District green orctapp · 2005 2 sentences 2017In Colby v. Gunson, 224 Or App 666, 671-72 , 199 P3d 350 (2008), rev’d on other grounds, 349 Or 1 , 238 P3d 374 (2010), we cautioned about reliance on the expressio unius maxim to determine legislative intent: “We qualified the value of that maxim in determining statutory intent in State ex rel City of Powers v. Coos County Airport, 201 Or App 222, 234 , 119 P3d 225 , rev den, 341 Or 197 (2005): “‘[B]oth we and the Supreme Court have repeatedly warned the bench and bar that expressio unius is not a rule of law but is instead a guide to understanding legislative intent. * * * The maxim “is to b 2017In Colby v. Gunson, 224 Or App 666, 671-72 , 199 P3d 350 (2008), rev’d on other grounds, 349 Or 1 , 238 P3d 374 (2010), we cautioned about reliance on the expressio unius maxim to determine legislative intent: “We qualified the value of that maxim in determining statutory intent in State ex rel City of Powers v. Coos County Airport, 201 Or App 222, 234 , 119 P3d 225 , rev den, 341 Or 197 (2005): “‘[B]oth we and the Supreme Court have repeatedly warned the bench and bar that expressio unius is not a rule of law but is instead a guide to understanding legislative intent. * * * The maxim “is to b	2	2008–2017
Ramirez v. State green or · 2006 2 sentences 2017In Colby v. Gunson, 224 Or App 666, 671-72 , 199 P3d 350 (2008), rev’d on other grounds, 349 Or 1 , 238 P3d 374 (2010), we cautioned about reliance on the expressio unius maxim to determine legislative intent: “We qualified the value of that maxim in determining statutory intent in State ex rel City of Powers v. Coos County Airport, 201 Or App 222, 234 , 119 P3d 225 , rev den, 341 Or 197 (2005): “‘[B]oth we and the Supreme Court have repeatedly warned the bench and bar that expressio unius is not a rule of law but is instead a guide to understanding legislative intent. * * * The maxim “is to b 2008Defendant relies on a maxim of statutory construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, "the expression of one is the exclusion of others." We qualified the value of that maxim in determining statutory intent in State ex rel City of Powers v. Coos County 353 Airport, 201 Or.App. 222, 234 , 119 P.3d 225 , rev. den., 341 Or. 197 , 140 P.3d 580 (2006): "[B]oth we and the Supreme Court have repeatedly warned the bench and bar that expressio unius is not a rule of law but is instead a guide to understanding legislative intent. * * The maxim `is to be applied with caution and merely as an a	2	2008–2017
Colby v. Gunson green orctapp · 2008 2 sentences 2017In Colby v. Gunson, 224 Or App 666, 671-72 , 199 P3d 350 (2008), rev’d on other grounds, 349 Or 1 , 238 P3d 374 (2010), we cautioned about reliance on the expressio unius maxim to determine legislative intent: “We qualified the value of that maxim in determining statutory intent in State ex rel City of Powers v. Coos County Airport, 201 Or App 222, 234 , 119 P3d 225 , rev den, 341 Or 197 (2005): “‘[B]oth we and the Supreme Court have repeatedly warned the bench and bar that expressio unius is not a rule of law but is instead a guide to understanding legislative intent. * * * The maxim “is to b 2017In Colby v. Gunson, 224 Or App 666, 671-72 , 199 P3d 350 (2008), rev’d on other grounds, 349 Or 1 , 238 P3d 374 (2010), we cautioned about reliance on the expressio unius maxim to determine legislative intent: “We qualified the value of that maxim in determining statutory intent in State ex rel City of Powers v. Coos County Airport, 201 Or App 222, 234 , 119 P3d 225 , rev den, 341 Or 197 (2005): “‘[B]oth we and the Supreme Court have repeatedly warned the bench and bar that expressio unius is not a rule of law but is instead a guide to understanding legislative intent. * * * The maxim “is to b	1	2017–2017
Colby v. Gunson green or · 2010 2 sentences 2017In Colby v. Gunson, 224 Or App 666, 671-72 , 199 P3d 350 (2008), rev’d on other grounds, 349 Or 1 , 238 P3d 374 (2010), we cautioned about reliance on the expressio unius maxim to determine legislative intent: “We qualified the value of that maxim in determining statutory intent in State ex rel City of Powers v. Coos County Airport, 201 Or App 222, 234 , 119 P3d 225 , rev den, 341 Or 197 (2005): “‘[B]oth we and the Supreme Court have repeatedly warned the bench and bar that expressio unius is not a rule of law but is instead a guide to understanding legislative intent. * * * The maxim “is to b 2017In Colby v. Gunson, 224 Or App 666, 671-72 , 199 P3d 350 (2008), rev’d on other grounds, 349 Or 1 , 238 P3d 374 (2010), we cautioned about reliance on the expressio unius maxim to determine legislative intent: “We qualified the value of that maxim in determining statutory intent in State ex rel City of Powers v. Coos County Airport, 201 Or App 222, 234 , 119 P3d 225 , rev den, 341 Or 197 (2005): “‘[B]oth we and the Supreme Court have repeatedly warned the bench and bar that expressio unius is not a rule of law but is instead a guide to understanding legislative intent. * * * The maxim “is to b	1	2017–2017
O'Neill v. Odd Fellows Home green or · 1918 2 sentences 1954Scott v. Ford, 52 Or 288 , 97 P 99 ; State of Oregon v. Standard Oil Co., 61 Or 438 , 123 P 40 ; O'Neill v. Odd Fellows Home, 89 Or 382 , 174 P 148 ; Cabell v. City of Cottage Grove, 170 Or 256 , 130 P 1013 . 1954Scott v. Ford, 52 Or 288 , 97 P 99 ; State of Oregon v. Standard Oil Co., 61 Or 438 , 123 P 40 ; O'Neill v. Odd Fellows Home, 89 Or 382 , 174 P 148 ; Cabell v. City of Cottage Grove, 170 Or 256 , 130 P 1013 .	1	1954–1954
Scott v. Ford green · 1908 2 sentences 1954Scott v. Ford, 52 Or 288 , 97 P 99 ; State of Oregon v. Standard Oil Co., 61 Or 438 , 123 P 40 ; O'Neill v. Odd Fellows Home, 89 Or 382 , 174 P 148 ; Cabell v. City of Cottage Grove, 170 Or 256 , 130 P 1013 . 1954Scott v. Ford, 52 Or 288 , 97 P 99 ; State of Oregon v. Standard Oil Co., 61 Or 438 , 123 P 40 ; O'Neill v. Odd Fellows Home, 89 Or 382 , 174 P 148 ; Cabell v. City of Cottage Grove, 170 Or 256 , 130 P 1013 .	1	1954–1954
State v. Standard Oil Co. green or · 1912 2 sentences 1954Scott v. Ford, 52 Or 288 , 97 P 99 ; State of Oregon v. Standard Oil Co., 61 Or 438 , 123 P 40 ; O'Neill v. Odd Fellows Home, 89 Or 382 , 174 P 148 ; Cabell v. City of Cottage Grove, 170 Or 256 , 130 P 1013 . 1954Scott v. Ford, 52 Or 288 , 97 P 99 ; State of Oregon v. Standard Oil Co., 61 Or 438 , 123 P 40 ; O'Neill v. Odd Fellows Home, 89 Or 382 , 174 P 148 ; Cabell v. City of Cottage Grove, 170 Or 256 , 130 P 1013 .	1	1954–1954

Where else courts name it

MD 8 (1965–2018) OR 8 (1954–2017) MO 5 (1955–2002) OK 4 (1956–2000) SD 3 (1955–2020) IL 2 (1972–1974)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check