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.
8 Oregon opinions name it 3 courts 1994–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & Industriesgreen2 sentences2008PGE , 317 Or at 611 (quoting ORS 174.010 for the rule that in the first level of statutory analysis, the court is guided by rules of construction including the enjoinder "not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted."); Roseburg Forest Products v. Hardenbrook-Hardy , 216 Or App 112 , 115-116 , 171 P3d 393 (2007) (stating that "[w]e apply the same framework to the interpretation of an administrative rule that we apply to the interpretation of a statute) (citations omitted). 2006See PGE, 317 Or at 611 (explaining that, at the first level of statutory analysis, the court considers both the text and context of the statute at issue). | 1 | 6 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Roseburg Forest Products v. Hardenbrook-Hardy
neutral
2 sentences2008PGE , 317 Or at 611 (quoting ORS 174.010 for the rule that in the first level of statutory analysis, the court is guided by rules of construction including the enjoinder "not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted."); Roseburg Forest Products v. Hardenbrook-Hardy , 216 Or App 112 , 115-116 , 171 P3d 393 (2007) (stating that "[w]e apply the same framework to the interpretation of an administrative rule that we apply to the interpretation of a statute) (citations omitted). 2008PGE , 317 Or at 611 (quoting ORS 174.010 for the rule that in the first level of statutory analysis, the court is guided by rules of construction including the enjoinder "not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted."); Roseburg Forest Products v. Hardenbrook-Hardy , 216 Or App 112 , 115-116 , 171 P3d 393 (2007) (stating that "[w]e apply the same framework to the interpretation of an administrative rule that we apply to the interpretation of a statute) (citations omitted). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Dymock v. Norwest Safety Protective Equipment for Oregon Industry, Inc.
green
1 sentence2002Id. at 404 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Holcomb v. Sunderland
green
2 sentences2000Holcomb v. Sunderland, 321 Or 99, 105 , 894 P2d 457 (1995). 2000Holcomb v. Sunderland, 321 Or 99, 105 , 894 P2d 457 (1995). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.